NUREG-1437 

 Supplement 14 

 

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants 

Supplement 14

Regarding 

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 

Draft Report for Comment

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555-0001
 

 NUREG-1437

 Supplement 14 

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 14

Regarding 

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Draft Report for Comment

Manuscript Completed: May 2003

Date Published: June 2003

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
(a) Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor

noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

June 2003 iii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Abstract

2

3

4 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of

5 renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic

6 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

7 Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in 10 CFR Part 51. The GEIS (and its Addendum 1)

8 identifies 92 environmental issues and reaches generic conclusions related to environmental

9 impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site

10 characteristics. Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These

11 plant-specific reviews are to be included in a supplement to the GEIS.

12

13 This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response

14 to an application submitted to the NRC by the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E)

15 to renew the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) OL for an additional 20 years under

16 10 CFR Part 54. This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs

17 the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to

18 the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse

19 impacts. It also includes the staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.

20

21 Regarding the 69 issues for which the GEIS reached generic conclusions, neither RG&E nor

22 NRC staff identified information that is both new and significant for any of these issues that

23 apply to Ginna. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of renewing the Ginna OL will

24 not be greater than impacts identified for these issues in the GEIS. The GEIS conclusion is that

the impacts are of SMALL(a) 25 significance (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from

26 the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single

27 significance level).

28

29 The remaining issues that apply to Ginna are addressed in this draft SEIS. For each applicable

30 issue, the staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental impacts of

31 renewal of the OL is SMALL. The staff also concludes that additional mitigation measures are

32 not likely to be sufficiently beneficial as to be warranted. The staff determined that information

33 provided during the scoping process did not identify any new issue that requires site-specific

34 assessment.

35
Abstract

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 iv June 2003

1 The NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation is that the Commission determine that the

2 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Ginna are not so great that preserving the

3 option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

4 recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental

5 Report submitted by RG&E; (3) consultation and discussions with Federal, state, and local

6 agencies; (4) the staff’s own independent review, and (5) the staff’s consideration of public

7 comments received during the scoping process.
June 2003 v Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Contents

2

3

4 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

5

6 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

7

8 Abbreviations/Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

9

10 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

11

12 1.1 Report Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

13 1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

14

15 1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

16 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

17

18 1.3 The Proposed Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

19 1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

20 1.5 Compliance and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

21 1.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

22

23 2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction with

24 the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

25

26 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the

27 Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

28

29 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

30 2.1.2 Reactor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

31 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

32 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent

33 Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

34

35 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . . . . 2-8

36 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . 2-10

37 2.1.4.3 Solid-Waste Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

38

39 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

40 2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

41 2.1.7 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

42
Contents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 vi June 2003

1 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2

3 2.2.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

4 2.2.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

5 2.2.3 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

6 2.2.4 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

7 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

8 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

9 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

10 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

11

12 2.2.8.1 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

13 2.2.8.2 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

14 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

15 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35

16 2.2.8.5 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36

17 2.2.8.6 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39

18

19 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-41

20

21 2.2.9.1 Historic and Archaeological Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-41

22 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at Ginna Site . . . . . . . . 2-44

23

24 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

25

26 2.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46

27

28 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

29

30 3.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

31

32 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

33

34 4.1 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

35

36 4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

37 4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

38 4.1.3 Heat Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

39
Contents

June 2003 vii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 4.2 Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

2

3 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields—Acute Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

4 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields—Chronic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

5

6 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

7 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License 

8 Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

9

10 4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

11 4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

12 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26

13 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . 4-28

14 4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29

15 4.4.6 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31

16

17 4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

18 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

19 4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on Impacts of

20 Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

21

22 4.7.1 Shoreline Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

23

24 4.8 Cumulative Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39

25

26 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the Plant 

27 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39

28 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of the 

29 Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

30 4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

31 4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

32 4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

33 4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

34

35 4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

36 4.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

37

38 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

39

40 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

41
Contents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 viii June 2003

1 5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

2 5.1.2 Severe Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

3

4 5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5

6 5.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

7 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for Ginna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

8 5.2.3 Potential Design Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

9 5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction Potential and Cost of 

10 Design Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

11 5.2.5 Cost/Benefit Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

12 5.2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

13

14 5.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

15

16 6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management . . . . 6-1

17

18 6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

19 6.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

20

21 7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

22

23 7.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

24

25 8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

26

27 8.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

28 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

29

30 8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

31

32 8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

33 8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23

34

35 8.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-25

36

37 8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26

38 8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-34

39

40 8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-36
Contents

June 2003 ix Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37

2 8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

3

4 8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

5 8.2.5 Other Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

6

7 8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49

8 8.2.5.2 Wind Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49

9 8.2.5.3 Solar Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50

10 8.2.5.4 Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50

11 8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-51

12 8.2.5.6 Wood Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-51

13 8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-52

14 8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-53

15 8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-53

16 8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-53

17 8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-54

18

19 8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-54

20

21 8.3 Summary of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-57

22

23 8.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-58

24

25 9.0 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

26

27 9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action – License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

28

29 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5

30 9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

31 9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

32

33 9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal

34 and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

35 9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

36 9.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

37

38 Appendix A - Comments Received on the Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

39 Appendix B - Contributors to the Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Contents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 x June 2003

1 Appendix C - Chronology of Environmental Review Correspondence Related to

2 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation’s Application for License

3 Renewal of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

4 Appendix D - Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

5 Appendix E - R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Compliance Status and

6 Consultation Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

7 Appendix F - GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to R.E. Ginna 

8 Nuclear Power Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

9

10 Appendix G - NRC Staff Safety Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation

11 Alternatives for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in Support of

12 License Renewal Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

13
June 2003 xi Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Figures

2

3

4 2-1 Location of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 80-km (50-mi) Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

5 2-2 Location of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 10-km (6-mi) Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

6 2-3 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

7 2-4 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

8

9 4-1 Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations Within 80 km (50 mi) of the

10 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site Based on Census Block Group Data . . . . . . . . 4-33

11 4-2 Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations Within 80 km (50 mi) 

12 of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site Based on Census Block 

13 Group Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

14
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xii June 2003

1 Tables

2

3

4 2-1 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission Lines Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

5 2-2 Aquatic Species Listed by the New York State Department of Environmental

6 Conservation as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern that are

7 Known to Occur Within Wayne County, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

8 2-3 Terrestrial Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered by the U.S. Fish and 

9 Wildlife Service that Occur or Potentially Occur Within Wayne County, New York . . . 2-24

10 2-4 Terrestrial Species Listed by the New York State Department of Environmental

11 Conservation as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern that Occur

12 Within Wayne County, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

13 2-5 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Employee and Contractor Employee Residence by

14 County in New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

15 2-6 Total Occupied and Vacant (Available) Housing Units in Wayne and

16 Monroe Counties in New York State, 1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

17 2-7 Population Growth in Monroe and Wayne Counties in New York State from 

18 1970 to 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

19 2-8 Major Public Water Supply Systems in Monroe and Wayne Counties in

20 New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

21 2-9 Land Use in Wayne and Monroe Counties in New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

22 2-10 Major Employment Sectors in Wayne and Monroe Counties in

23 New York State (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37

24 2-11 Property Taxes Paid to the Town of Ontario, Wayne County, and Wayne

25 Central School District in New York State by RG&E for R.E. Ginna Nuclear

26 Power Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40

27

28 3-1 Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

29 3-2 Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

30

31 4-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

32 Cooling System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

33 4-2 Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

34 Cooling System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

35 4-3 List of the Fish from Lake Ontario Impinged at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

36 from 1997 Through 2001 (RG&E 2002b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

37 4-4 Category 1 Issues Applicable to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission

38 Lines During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

39 4-5 Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear

40 Power Plant Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

41
Contents

June 2003 xiii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 4-6 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

2 During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

3 4-7 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . 4-21

4 4-8 Environmental Justice and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable to

5 Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

6 4-9 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the

7 Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

8 4-10 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During the

9 Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

10

11 5-1 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term . . . . . 5-3

12 5-2 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term . . . . . 5-4

13 5-3 Core Damage Frequency for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

14 5-4 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

15

16 6-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste

17 Management During the License Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

18

19 7-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Decommissioning of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

20 Plant Following the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

21

22 8-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative and

23 Decommissioning Related to Renewal of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

24 Operating License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

25 8-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using Closed-Cycle

26 Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site and an Alternate Site in 

27 New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

28 8-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation with 

29 Once-Through Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or an

30 Alternate Site in New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-24

31 8-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Using

32 Closed-Cycle Cooling at an Alternate Site in New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32

33 8-5 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation with

34 Once-Through Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or at an

35 Alternate Site in New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-35

36 8-6 Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using

37 Closed-Cycle Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site and at an

38 Alternate Site in New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

39 8-7 Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Power Generation Using

40 Once-Through Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or at an

41 Alternate Site in New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46
Contents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xiv June 2003

1 8-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Assumed Combination of Generating

2 (Combined-Cycle Natural-Gas-Fired Generation, Wind Power, and DSM) and

3 Acquisition Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-55

4

5 9-1 Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action

6 Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

7

8 A-1 Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4

9

10 E-1 Consultation Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

11

12 E-2 Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and

13 Other Approvals for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2

14

15 F-1 GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Ginna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

16

17 G-1 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Core Damage Frequency (Revision 4.2 of PSA) . . . . G-3

18

19 G-2 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-4

20

21 G-3 SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-17

22

23 G-4 Uncertainty in the Calculated Core Damage Frequency for R.E. Ginna 

24 Nuclear Power Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-24

25
1 (a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

2 all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

June 2003 xv Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Executive Summary

2

3

4 By letter dated July 30, 2002, the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) submitted an

5 application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license

6 (OL) for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) for an additional 20-year period. If the OL

7 is renewed, state regulatory agencies and RG&E will ultimately decide whether the plant will

8 continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the

9 state’s jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OL is not renewed, then the plant must

10 be shut down at or before the expiration date of the current OL, which is September 18, 2009.

11

12 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321), directs that an

13 environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that significantly

14 affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA

15 in 10 CFR Part 51, which identifies licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In

16 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS

17 for renewal of a reactor OL; 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal

18 stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2.(a) 19

20

21 Upon acceptance of the RG&E application, the NRC began the environmental review process

22 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct

23 scoping. The staff visited Ginna in November 2002 and held public scoping meetings on

24 November 6, 2002, in Webster, New York. In preparing this draft supplemental environmental

25 impact statement (SEIS) for Ginna, the staff reviewed the RG&E Environmental Report (ER) for

26 Ginna and compared it to the GEIS; consulted with other agencies; conducted an independent

27 review of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, the

28 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: 

29 Operating License Renewal; and considered the public comments received during the scoping

30 process. The public comments received during the scoping process and the staff’s response to

31 the comments are provided in Appendix A, Part 1, of this draft SEIS.

32

33 The staff will hold two public meetings near Ginna in August 2003 to describe the preliminary

34 results of the NRC environmental review, answer questions, and provide members of the public

35 with information to assist them in formulating comments on this SEIS. When the comment

36 period ends, the staff will consider and disposition all of the comments received. These

37 comments will be addressed in Appendix A, Part 2, of the final SEIS. Additional details

38 concerning the meetings will be provided in a future meeting notice and in the Notice of

39 Availability concerning this draft SEIS in the Federal Register.

40
Executive Summary

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xvi June 2003

1 This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff’s preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the

2 environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the

3 proposed action, and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also

4 includes the staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.

5

6 The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal

7 from the GEIS:

8

9 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

10 provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

11 current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

12 as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal

13 (other than NRC) decisionmakers.

14

15 The goal of the staff’s environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is

16 to determine

17

18 ...whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that

19 preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be

20 unreasonable.

21

22 Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge

23 that, even if an OL is renewed, there are other factors that will ultimately determine whether an

24 existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current OL.

25

26 NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)) contain the following statement regarding the content of

27 SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

28

29 The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

30 include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of

31 the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such

32 benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an

33 alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition,

34 the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage

35 need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed

36 action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility

37 within the scope of the generic determination in 51.23(a) [“Temporary storage of spent

38 fuel after cessation of reactor operation–generic determination of no significant

39 environmental impact”] and in accordance with 51.23(b).

40
Executive Summary

June 2003 xvii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an

2 OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates

3 92 environmental issues using the NRC’s three-level standard of significance – SMALL,

4 MODERATE, or LARGE – developed using Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. The

5 following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in a footnote to Table B-1 of

6 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

7

8 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

9 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

10

11 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

12 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

13

14 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

15 important attributes of the resource.

16

17 For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the analysis in the GEIS led to the following

18 conclusions:

19

20 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

21 to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

22 specified plant or site characteristics.

23

24 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

25 impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high26 level waste and spent fuel disposal).

27

28 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

29 and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely

30 to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

31

32 These 69 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. The staff relies on

33 conclusions as amplified by supporting information in the GEIS for issues designated as

34 Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

35

36 Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

37 issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

38 environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. 

39 Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant40 specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields

41 was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.
Executive Summary

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xviii June 2003

1 This draft SEIS documents the staff’s evaluation of all 92 environmental issues considered in

2 the GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to

3 license renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the

4 alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action

5 alternative (not renewing the OL for Ginna) and alternative methods of power generation. 

6 Based on projections made by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information

7 Administration, gas- and coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely power-generation

8 alternatives if the power from Ginna is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated assuming

9 that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the Ginna site or some other

10 unspecified alternate location.

11

12 RG&E and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the

13 significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. RG&E

14 and the staff did not identify information that is both new and significant related to Category 1

15 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Neither the scoping process

16 nor the staff review has identified any new issue applicable to Ginna. Therefore, the staff relies

17 upon the conclusions of the GEIS for all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to Ginna.

18

19 The Ginna ER presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues that are applicable to Ginna. In

20 addition, the staff has evaluated the two uncategorized issues, environmental justice and

21 chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. The staff has reviewed the RG&E analysis for each

22 issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue. Six Category 2 issues are not

23 applicable because they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at

24 Ginna. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this draft SEIS because they are

25 specifically related to refurbishment. RG&E has stated that its evaluation of structures and

26 components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant refurbishment

27 activities or modifications as necessary to support the continued operation of Ginna for the

28 license renewal period. In addition, any replacement of components or additional inspection

29 activities that are within the bounds of normal plant operation are not expected to affect the

30 environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the Final Environmental

31 Statement Related to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Rochester Gas

32 and Electric Corporation, issued by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1973.

33

34 Ten Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and one related to postulated accidents

35 during the renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic

36 fields, are discussed in detail in this draft SEIS. Five of the Category 2 issues and

37 environmental justice apply to both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term and

38 are only discussed in this draft SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all

39 11 Category 2 issues and environmental justice, the staff preliminarily concludes that the

40 potential environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set
Executive Summary

June 2003 xix Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 forth in the GEIS. In addition, the staff determined that appropriate Federal health agencies

2 have not reached a consensus on the existence of chronic adverse effects from

3 electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no further evaluation of this issue is required. For severe

4 accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive

5 effort was made to identify and evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for Ginna

6 and the plant improvements already made, the staff concludes that two of the candidate SAMAs

7 are cost beneficial. However, these SAMAs do not relate to adequately managing the effects of

8 aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as

9 part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

10

11 Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

12 the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

13 mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

14

15 Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were

16 considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such

17 other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where Ginna license renewal impacts are deemed

18 to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative

19 impacts on potentially affected resources. 

20

21 If the Ginna OL is not renewed and the plant ceases operation on or before the expiration of the

22 current OL, then the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will not be smaller than those

23 associated with continued operation of Ginna. The impacts may, in fact, be greater in some

24 areas.

25

26 The preliminary recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the

27 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Ginna are not so great that preserving the

28 option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable at the

29 license renewal stage. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the

30 GEIS; (2) the ER submitted by RG&E; (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local

31 agencies; (4) the staff’s own independent review; and (5) the staff’s consideration of public

32 comments received during the scoping process.

June 2003 xxi Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

Abbreviations/Acronyms

1 m micrometer

2

3 ac acre(s)

4 AC alternating current

5 ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs

6 ADAMS Agencywide Document Access and Management System

7 AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

8 AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

9 AFW auxiliary feedwater

10 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

11 AOC averted offsite property damage costs

12 AOE averted occupational exposure

13 AOSC averted onsite costs

14 AOV air-operated valve

15 APE averted public exposure

16 ATWS anticipated transient(s) without scram

17

18 BACT best available control technology

19 Bq becquerel(s)

20 Bq/mL becquerel(s) per milliliter

21 Btu British thermal unit(s)

22

23 C degrees Celsius

24 CAA Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended

25 CDF core damage frequency

26 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

27 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

28 Ci curie(s)

29 cm centimeter(s)

30 COE cost of enhancement

31 CWA Clean Water Act of 1977 (also known as Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

32

33 DBA design-basis accident

34 DC direct current

35 DOE U.S. Department of Energy

36 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

37 DSM demand-side management

38

39
Abbreviations/Acronyms

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xxii June 2003

1 EIA Energy Information Administration (of DOE)

2 EIS environmental impact statement

3 ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field

4 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

5 ER Environmental Report

6 ESA Endangered Species Act

7

8 F degrees Fahrenheit

9 FAA U.S. Federal Aviation Administration

10 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

11 FES Final Environmental Statement

12 FR Federal Register

13 ft foot/feet

ft3 14 cubic foot/feet

15 F-V Fussel-Vessely

16 FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act of

17 1977)

18 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

19

20 g gram(s)

21 gal gallon(s)

22 GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,

23 NUREG-1437

24 Ginna R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

25 GJ gigajoule(s)

26 gpd gallon(s) per day

27 gpm gallon(s) per minute

28 GWh gigawatt hour(s)

29

30 ha hectare(s)

31 hr hour(s)

32 Hz hertz

33

34 IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

35 in. inch(es)

36 IPE individual plant examination

37 IPEEE individual plant examination of external events

38 ISLOCA interfacing system loss-of-coolant accident

39

40 J joule(s)
Abbreviations/Acronyms

June 2003 xxiii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 kg kilogram(s)

2 kJ kilojoule(s)

3 km kilometer(s)

4 kV kilovolt(s)

5 kWh kilowatt hour(s)

6

7 L liter(s)

8 L/d liter(s) per day

9 L/s liter(s) per second

10 LAER lowest achievable emissions rate

11 lb pound(s)

12 LERF large early release frequency

13 LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

14

15 m meter(s)

16 mA milliampere(s)

17 MAB maximum attainable benefit

18 MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

19 MBq megabecquerel(s)

20 MCWA Monroe County Water Authority

21 MGD million gallons per day

22 m/s meter(s) per second

m3 23 /d cubic meter(s) per day

m3 24 /min cubic meter(s) per minute

m3 25 /s cubic meter(s) per second

26 mi mile(s)

27 min minute(s)

28 MJ/m3 megajoule(s) per cubic meter

29 ml milliliter(s)

30 MMBtu million British thermal units of heat

31 MOV motor-operated valve

32 mrem millirem(s)

33 msl mean sea level

34 mSv millisievert(s)

35 MT metric ton(s) (or tonne[s])

36 MTHM metric ton(s) (or tonne[s]) heavy metal

37 MTU metric ton(s) uranium

38 MW megawatt(s)

39 MWd megawatt-day(s)

40 MW(e) megawatt(s) electric

41 MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal
Abbreviations/Acronyms

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 xxiv June 2003

1 MWh megawatt hour(s)

2

3 NA not applicable

4 NAS National Academy of Sciences

5 NEI Nuclear Energy Institute

6 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

7 NESC National Electrical Safety Code

8 ng nanograms

9 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

10 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

11 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

12 NOx nitrogen oxide(s)

13 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

14 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

15 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

16 NRHP National Register of Historic Places

17 NYS New York State

18 NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

19 NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

20

21 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

22 OL operating license

23

24 PARS Publicly Available Records portion of ADAMS

25 PCB polychlorinated biphenyl(s)

26 pCi picocurie(s)

27 PCR plant change request

28 PM10 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <10 m

29 PORV power-operated relief valves

30 PRA probabilistic risk assessment

31 PSA probabilistic safety assessment

32 PSD prevention of significant deterioration

33 psig pounds per square inch gauge

34 PWR pressurized water reactor

35

36 RAI request for additional information

37 RAW risk achievement worth

38 RCP reactor coolant pump

39 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

40 RCS reactor coolant system
Abbreviations/Acronyms

June 2003 xxv Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 rem special unit of dose equivalent, equal to 0.01 Sv

2 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

3 RG&E Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation

4 RHR residual heat removal

5 RMWT reactor makeup water tank

6 ROC Greater Rochester International Airport

7 RPC replacement power cost

8 RWST refueling water storage tank

9

10 s second(s)

11 SAFW standby auxiliary feedwater

12 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative

13 SAR safety analysis report

14 SBO station blackout

15 SCR selective catalytic reduction

16 SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement

17 SEP systematic evaluation program

18 SER safety evaluation report

19 SGTR steam generator tube rupture

20 SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

21 SO2 sulfur dioxide

22 SOx sulfur oxides

23 SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

24 SQUG Seismic Qualification Utility Group

25 STC source term category

26 Sv sievert, special unit of dose equivalent

27 SW service water

28

29 THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

30

31 UFSAR updated final safety analysis report

32 USC United States Code

33 USCB U.S. Census Bureau

34 USI unresolved safety issue

35

36 VAC volt(s) alternating current

37 VCT volume control tank

38

39 WEC Westinghouse Electric Company

40
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

June 2003 1-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 1.0 Introduction

2

3

4 Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) environmental protection regulations in

5 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, which implement the National

6 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license

7 (OL) requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). In preparing the

8 EIS, the NRC staff is required first to issue the statement in draft form for public comment and

9 then issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft. To support the

10 preparation of the EIS, the staff has prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

11 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996,

1999).(a) 12 The GEIS is intended to (1) provide an understanding of the types and severity of

13 environmental impacts that may occur as a result of license renewal of nuclear power plants

14 under 10 CFR Part 54, (2) identify and assess the impacts that are expected to be generic to

15 license renewal, and (3) support 10 CFR Part 51 to define the number and scope of issues that

16 need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant renewal proceedings. The GEIS

17 guides the preparation of complete plant-specific information in support of the OL renewal

18 process.

19

20 The Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) operates the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

21 Plant (Ginna) in northwestern New York, under OL DPR-18 issued by the Atomic Energy

22 Commission. This OL will expire on September 18, 2009. On July 30, 2002, RG&E submitted

23 an application to the NRC to renew the Ginna OL for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR

24 Part 54. RG&E is a licensee for the purposes of its current OL and an applicant for the renewal

25 of the OL. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), RG&E submitted an Environmental Report

26 (ER) (RG&E 2002), in which RG&E analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the

27 proposed license renewal action, considered alternatives to the proposed action, and evaluated

28 mitigation measures for reducing adverse environmental effects.

29

30 This report is the draft, plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (i.e., the supplemental EIS

31 [SEIS]) for the RG&E license renewal application for Ginna. This SEIS is a supplement to the

32 GEIS because it relies, in part, on the findings of the GEIS. The staff will also prepare a

33 separate safety evaluation report in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.

34

35 1.1 Report Contents

36

37 The following sections of this introduction (1) describe the background for the preparation of

38 this SEIS, including the development of the GEIS and the process used by the staff to assess
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 1-2 June 2003

1 the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, (2) describe the proposed Federal

2 action to renew the Ginna OL, (3) discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action, and

3 (4) present the status of RG&E’s compliance with environmental quality standards and

4 requirements that have been imposed by Federal, state, regional, and local agencies that are

5 responsible for environmental protection.

6

7 The ensuing chapters of this SEIS closely parallel the contents and organization of the GEIS. 

8 Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. 

9 Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, discuss the potential environmental impacts of plant

10 refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term. Chapter 5 contains an evaluation of

11 potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of severe

12 accident mitigation alternatives. Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

13 management. Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning, and Chapter 8 discusses alternatives to

14 license renewal. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters and

15 draws conclusions about any adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, the relationship between

16 short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

17 productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Chapter 9 also

18 presents the staff’s preliminary recommendation with respect to the proposed license renewal

19 action.

20

21 Additional information is included in appendixes. Appendix A contains public comments

22 received on the environmental review for license renewal and staff responses. Appendixes B

23 through G, respectively, list the following:

24

25  the contributors to the supplement

26

27  the chronology of environmental review correspondence related to RG&E license renewal

28 for the Ginna OL

29

30  the organizations contacted during the development of this SEIS

31

32  RG&E’s compliance status in Table E-1 (this appendix also contains copies of consultation

33 correspondence prepared and sent during the evaluation process)

34

35  GEIS environmental issues that are not applicable to Ginna

36

37  the NRC staff’s safety evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives for Ginna.

38

39
Introduction

June 2003 1-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 1.2 Background

2

3 Use of the GEIS, which examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a

4 result of renewing individual nuclear power plant OLs under 10 CFR Part 54, and the

5 established license renewal evaluation process support thorough evaluation of the impacts of

6 renewal of the OLs.

7

8 1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement

9

10 The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the

11 license renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting

12 the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission’s regulations. This

13 assessment is provided in the GEIS, which serves as the principal reference for all nuclear

14 power plant license renewal EISs.

15

16 The GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach that was taken to evaluate the

17 environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and

18 operating them for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue, the GEIS

19 (1) describes the activity that affects the environment, (2) identifies the population or resource

20 that is affected, (3) assesses the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected population

21 or resource, (4) characterizes the significance of the effect for both beneficial and adverse

22 effects, (5) determines whether the results of the analysis apply to all plants, and (6) considers

23 whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the

24 same significance level for all plants.

25

26 The NRC’s standard of significance of impacts was established using Council on Environmental

27 Quality (CEQ) terminology for “significantly” (40 CFR 1508.27, which requires consideration of

28 both “context” and “intensity”). Using the CEQ terminology, the NRC established three

29 significance levels – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of the three significance

30 levels are set forth in a footnote to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, as

31 follows:

32

33 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

34 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

35

36 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,

37 important attributes of the resource.

38

39 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

40 important attributes of the resource.
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 1-4 June 2003

1 The GEIS assigns a significance level to each environmental issue, assuming that ongoing

2 mitigation measures would continue.

3

4 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be

5 applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues

6 were then assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS,

7 Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

8

9 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

10 to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

11 specified plant or site characteristic.

12

13 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

14 impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high15 level waste and spent fuel disposal).

16

17 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

18 and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

19 to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

20

21 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

22 required in this SEIS unless new and significant information is identified.

23

24 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and

25 therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.

26

27 In the GEIS, the staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as

28 Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues were not categorized. The

29 last two issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are to be

30 addressed in a plant-specific analysis. Of the 92 issues, 11 are related only to refurbishment,

31 6 are related only to decommissioning, 67 apply only to operation during the renewal term, and

32 8 apply to both refurbishment and operation during the renewal term. A summary of the

33 findings for all 92 issues in the GEIS is codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

34 Appendix B.

35

36 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process

37

38 An applicant seeking to renew its OLs is required to submit an ER as part of its application. 

39 The license renewal evaluation process involves careful review of the applicant’s ER and

40 assurance that all new and potentially significant information not already addressed in or
Introduction

June 2003 1-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 available during the GEIS evaluation is identified, reviewed, and assessed to verify the

2 environmental impacts of the proposed license renewal.

3

4 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and (3), the ER submitted by the applicant must

5

6  contain a description of the proposed action, including the applicant’s plans to modify the

7 facility or its administrative control procedures as described in accordance with

8 10 CFR 54.21

9

10  describe in detail the modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant

11 effluents that affect the environment

12

13  discuss the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters described in

14 10 CFR 51.45

15

16  contain analyses of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including the impacts

17 of refurbishment activities, if any, associated with license renewal

18

19  describe the impacts of operation during the renewal term, for those issues identified as

20 Category 2 issues in 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

21

22 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), the ER does not need to discuss

23

24  issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives

25

26  any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic

27 determination in 51.23(a) and in accordance with 51.23(b)

28

29  the need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action or

30 of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such costs and benefits are either

31 essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of

32 alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation

33

34  other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the

35 alternatives

36

37  any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic

38 determination in 51.23(a) and in accordance with 51.23(b).

39

40 New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant environmental

41 issue not covered in the GEIS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 1-6 June 2003

1 Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS

2 and that leads to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GEIS and

3 codified in 10 CFR Part 51.

4

5 In preparing to submit its application to renew the Ginna OL, RG&E developed a process to

6 ensure that information not addressed in, or available, during the GEIS evaluation regarding the

7 environmental impacts of license renewal for Ginna would be properly reviewed before

8 submitting the ER and that such new and potentially significant information related to renewal of

9 the licenses for Ginna would be identified, reviewed, and assessed during the period of NRC

10 review. RG&E reviewed the Category 1 issues that appear in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,

11 Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify that the conclusions of the GEIS remained valid with respect to

12 Ginna. This review was performed by personnel from RG&E and its support organization who

13 were familiar with NEPA issues and the scientific disciplines involved in the preparation of a

14 license renewal ER.

15

16 The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process

17 is described in detail in Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power

18 Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (NRC 2000). 

19 The search for new information includes (1) review of an applicant’s ER and the process for

20 discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of records of public

21 comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations; (4) coordination with

22 Federal, state, and local environmental protection and resource agencies; and (5) review of the

23 technical literature. New information discovered by the staff is evaluated for significance using

24 the criteria set forth in the GEIS. For Category 1 issues where new and significant information

25 is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the

26 assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the assessment does

27 not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new information.

28

29 Chapters 3 through 7 discuss the environmental issues considered in the GEIS that are

30 applicable to Ginna. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, a table identifies

31 the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GEIS where the issue is discussed. 

32 Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For Category 1 issues for

33 which there is no new and significant information, the table is followed by a set of short

34 paragraphs that state the GEIS conclusion codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

35 Appendix B, and the staff’s analysis and conclusion. Section 4.7 contains a discussion of

36 shoreline erosion. For Category 2 issues, in addition to the list of GEIS sections where the

37 issue is discussed, the tables list the subparagraph of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describes the

38 analysis required and the SEIS sections where the analysis is presented. The SEIS sections

39 that discuss the Category 2 issues are presented immediately following the table.

40
Introduction

June 2003 1-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal

2 and compares these impacts with the environmental impacts of alternatives. The evaluation of

3 the RG&E license renewal application began with publication of a notice of acceptance for

4 docketing and opportunity for a hearing in the Federal Register (NRC 2002a) on September 30,

5 2002. The staff published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (NRC

6 2002b) for Ginna on October 10, 2002. Two public scoping meetings were held on November

7 6, 2002, in Webster, New York. Comments received during the scoping period were

8 summarized in the Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process: Summary Report – R.E.

9 Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, New York (NRC 2003). These comments are presented in Part 1

10 of Appendix A.

11

12 The staff followed the review guidance contained in Standard Review Plans for Environmental

13 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1555,

14 Supplement 1 (NRC 2000). The staff and its contractors retained to assist the staff visited

15 Ginna during November 5-7, 2002, to gather information and to become familiar with the site

16 and its environs. The staff also reviewed the comments received during scoping and consulted

17 with Federal, state, regional, and local agencies. A list of the organizations contacted is

18 provided in Appendix D. Other documents related to Ginna were reviewed and are referenced.

19

20 This draft SEIS presents the staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental

21 effects of the proposed renewal of the Ginna OL, the environmental impacts of alternatives to

22 license renewal, and mitigation measures available for avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

23 Chapter 9, “Summary and Conclusions,” provides the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation

24 to the Commission on whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are

25 so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers

26 would be unreasonable.

27

28 A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental

29 Protection Agency Notice of Filing of the draft SEIS to allow members of the public to comment

30 on the preliminary results of the NRC staff’s review. During this comment period, two public

31 meetings will be held near Ginna in August 2003. During these meetings, the staff will describe

32 the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review and answer questions to provide

33 members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their comments.

34

35 1.3 The Proposed Federal Action

36

37 The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OL for Ginna, which is located in the town of

38 Ontario, New York, in the northwest corner of Wayne County and on the south shore of Lake

39 Ontario. The plant has a pressurized water reactor with the capability to produce 490 net

40 megawatts of electric power. Plant cooling is provided by a once-through cooling system to
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 1-8 June 2003

1 remove waste heat from the reactor steam-electric system. Cooling water is withdrawn from

2 Lake Ontario. Ginna produces enough electricity to supply the needs of approximately

3 560,000 residential customers. The current OL expires on September 18, 2009. By letter

4 dated July 30, 2002, RG&E submitted an application to the NRC (RG&E 2002) to renew this OL

5 for an additional 20 years of operation (i.e., until September 18, 2029).

6

7 1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

8

9 Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor beyond the term of the

10 existing OL, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions that must be

11 met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once

12 an OL is renewed, state regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide

13 whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other

14 matters within the state’s jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.

15

16 Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following definition of purpose and

17 need from GEIS Section 1.3 (NRC 1996):

18

19 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

20 provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

21 current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

22 as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other

23 than NRC) decisionmakers.

24

25 This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission’s recognition that, unless there are

26 findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or findings in the NEPA

27 environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the

28 NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of state regulators and utility

29 officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. From the

30 perspective of the licensee and the state regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing an OL is

31 to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements beyond the

32 current term of the plant’s license.

33

34 1.5 Compliance and Consultations

35

36 RG&E is required to hold certain Federal, state, and local environmental permits, as well as

37 meet relevant Federal and state statutory requirements. In its ER, RG&E provided a list of the

38 authorizations from Federal, state, and local authorities for current operations as well as
Introduction

June 2003 1-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 environmental approvals and consultations associated with Ginna license renewal. A full list of

2 authorizations and consultations related to the proposed OL renewal action is provided by

3 RG&E and included in Appendix E.

4

5 The staff has reviewed the list and consulted with the appropriate Federal, state, and local

6 agencies to identify any compliance or permit issues or significant environmental issues of

7 concern to the reviewing agencies. The New York State Department of Environmental

8 Conservation submitted comments regarding shoreline erosion. This issue is discussed n

9 Section 4.7. RG&E states in its ER that it is in compliance with applicable environmental

10 standards and requirements for Ginna.

11

12 1.6 References

13

14 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing

15 of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

16

17 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

18 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

19

20 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

21 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

22

23 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part

24 1508, “Terminology and Index.”

25

26 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). 42 USC 2011, et seq.

27

28 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

29

30 Rochester Gas and Electric (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Application for

31 Renewed Operating License, Volume 2, Appendix E – Environmental Report. Rochester,

32 New York.

33

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

35 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

36

37 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

38 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

39 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

40 Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 1-10 June 2003

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for Environmental

2 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555,

3 Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

4

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. “Rochester Gas and Electric

6 Corporation, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the

7 Application and Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding Renewal of License No. DPR 18

8 for an Additional 20-Year Period.” Federal Register: Vol. 67, No. 189, pp. 61354-61355

9 (September 30, 2002).

10

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. “Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation

12 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

13 Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal Register: Vol. 67, No. 197, pp. 63171-

14 63173 (October 10, 2002).

15

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping

17 Process: Summary Report – R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Webster, New York. 

18 Washington, D.C.
June 2003 2-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site

2 and Plant Interaction with the Environment

3

4

5 The R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) is located 6 km (4 mi) north of Ontario, New York,

6 in the northwest corner of Wayne County and on the south shore of Lake Ontario. The Ginna

7 site is approximately 32 km (20 mi) east of the city of Rochester and 64 km (40 mi) west8 southwest of Oswego, New York. The plant consists of one unit equipped with a nuclear steam

9 supply system supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation that uses a pressurized water

10 reactor (PWR) and a once-through cooling system. The plant and its environs are discussed in

11 Section 2.1, and the plant’s interactions with the environment are presented in Section 2.2.

12

13 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant

14 Operation During the Renewal Term

15

16 The immediate area around the Ginna site is rural. There are no substantial population

17 centers, industrial complexes, airports, transportation arteries, or parks within a 5-km (3-mi)

18 radius of the site, and the only recreational facility within this radius is the Bear Creek boat ramp

19 located about 2.4 km (1.5 mi) east of the site. The largest community within 16 km (10 mi) of

20 the site is Webster, which is located in Monroe County. Webster, with a town population of

21 about 38,000, is about 11 km (7 mi) west-southwest of the site (RG&E 2002a). The largest

22 metropolitan area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius is Rochester, which is approximately 32 km

23 (20 mi) west of the site and has with a population of about 220,000. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show

24 the location of Ginna in relationship to the counties and important cities and towns within an 80-

25 km (50-mi) and 10-km (6-mi) radius, respectively.

26

27 The Ginna site is owned by the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). The site has

28 increased from 137 ha (338 ac) in 1972 to the present size of 197 ha (488 ac), and

29 correspondingly, the shoreline extent has increased from about 0.6 km (1 mi) to 0.9 km

30 (1.5 mi). 

31

32 There are three occupied farm houses on the site that are owned by RG&E, and the occupants

33 have leases that are renewable annually at the option of RG&E. There are a number of

34 unoccupied buildings on the site. With the exception of some physical security improvements,

35 there are no plans for additional building onsite. The physical security improvements are not

36 related to license renewal.
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-2 June 2003

1

2 Figure 2-1. Location of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 80-km (50-mi) Region
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Figure 2-2. Location of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 10-km (6-mi) Region
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-4 June 2003

1 The surface of the terrain at the Ginna site on the south shore of Lake Ontario and to the east

2 and west is either flat or gently rolling. The elevation of the site increases to the south from

3 about 78 m (255 ft) above mean sea level (msl) near the edge of Lake Ontario; to 134 m (440

4 ft) at New York State (NYS) Route 104, which is 5.5 km (3.5 mi) south of the lake; and then to

5 about 488 m (1600 ft) at the northern edge of the Appalachian Plateau, which is 48 to 64 km

6 (30 to 40 mi) to the south. Southward from NYS Route 104, the topography gradually changes

7 to a series of small abrupt hills commencing about 16 km (10 mi) south of the site. Surface8 water features on the site are limited to Mill Creek, which enters the site from the south, and

9 Deer Creek, which enters from the west. These two creeks join southwest of the plant and

10 empty into Lake Ontario just east of the plant. The general plant area is relatively well drained,

11 with no topographic basins or swampy areas on the site. All drainage, both surface and

12 subsurface, ultimately flows toward the lake.

13

14 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting

15

16 The plant is visible from Lake Road (County Route 101), which borders the site in an east-west

17 direction approximately 518 m (1700 ft) south of the plant. A distinctive design feature of the

18 plant is a facade that conceals the dome of the reactor containment building, thus minimizing

19 the aesthetic impact of the plant on the surrounding community. The area around the site is

20 rural and the agricultural production and undisturbed land onsite enhances this appearance.

21

22 Major structures in addition to the reactor building are the auxiliary building, intermediate

23 building, control building, turbine building, screen house, condensate demineralizer building,

24 standby auxiliary feedwater pump building, and the service building containing offices, shops,

25 and laboratories. Figure 2-3 identifies the major buildings on the site.

26

27 The Ginna site is located in the lake plain, a slender band of land bordering Lake Ontario that is

28 about 8 to 48 km (5 to 30 mi) wide. The terrain is flat-to-rolling and contains numerous short

29 streams that flow northward directly into Lake Ontario (AEC 1973). The surrounding region has

30 agricultural land and rural communities.
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1

2 Figure 2-3. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Layout

3

4 2.1.2 Reactor Systems

5

6 The Ginna reactor is a pressurized light-water-moderated and -cooled system designed by

7 Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The system has two identical heat-transfer closed loops,

8 each of which includes a reactor coolant pump and a steam generator connected to the reactor

9 vessel. Ginna began commercial operation in July 1970 at a licensed output of 1300

10 megawatts thermal power (MW[t]) and at 420 MW net electrical power (MW[e]). On March 1,

11 1972, on the basis of additional safety and environmental evaluations, the licensed output was

12 increased to 1520 MW(t) and the net electrical output was increased to 490 MW(e).

13

14 The reactor containment is a vertical, cylindrical, reinforced-concrete type with pre-stressed

15 tendons in the vertical wall; a reinforced-concrete ring anchored to the bedrock; and a
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-6 June 2003

1 reinforced semi-hemispherical dome. The major components of the reactor coolant system are

2 located within the containment structure. The containment structure provides a physical barrier

3 to protect the equipment from natural disasters and shielding to protect personnel from

4 radiation emitted from the reactor core while at power. A welded steel liner is attached to the

5 inside face of the concrete shell to provide leak-tightness. The reactor vessel is located in the

6 center of the containment structure below ground level. The reactor is licensed to use uranium

7 dioxide fuel that has a maximum enrichment of 5.0 percent uranium-235 by weight. Typical

8 average enrichment is 4.2 percent uranium-235 by weight. The approximate maximum average

9 burnup is less than 55,000 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium (MWd/MTU).

10

11 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems

12

13 Lake Ontario is the source of water for the turbine condenser cooling and most auxiliary water

14 systems at Ginna. Water from Lake Ontario reaches Ginna through a submerged offshore

15 intake. Water returns to Lake Ontario through a surface shoreline discharge. The total nominal

16 flow of water for these systems is about 22,370 L/s (354,600 gpm). A flow of approximately

17 21,245 L/s (340,000 gpm) is used to cool the turbine condenser, and the rest of the water is

18 available for auxiliary systems such as service water and fire protection.

19

20 The turbine condenser cooling system removes heat via the main condensers. The system

21 consists of an offshore intake structure designed specifically to minimize the possibility of

22 clogging, an inlet tunnel, four traveling screens, two circulating water pumps, and shoreline

23 discharge via a short discharge canal. The intake structure is located 945 m (3100 ft) from

24 shore at a depth of about 10 m (33 ft) water at mean lake level. Even an occurrence of a

25 historical low water level will result in no less than 4.6 m (15 ft) of water covering the intake

26 structure. Screen racks with bars spaced 25 to 35 cm (10 to 14 in.) apart prevent large objects

27 from entering the system. At full-flow conditions (22,370 L/s [354,600 gpm]), the velocity at the

28 intake screen racks is about 0.2 m (0.8 ft) per second. A 3-m (10-ft) diameter, reinforced29 concrete-lined tunnel cut through bedrock extends 945 m (3100 ft) in a northerly direction from

30 the shoreline. Before the intake water reaches the two circulating water pumps that send it

31 through the plant, the water passes through one of four parallel traveling screens. Some of this

32 water is used to flush the debris off the screens into the discharge canal. All fish and debris,

33 excluding collections taken during impingement studies, are returned to Lake Ontario via this

34 discharge canal.

35

36 Water used to cool the turbine condenser is discharged into the discharge canal. The water

37 discharged into the canal enters Lake Ontario at the shoreline. The normal temperature

38 increase over the ambient water temperature at the point of discharge is about 11C (20F),

39 and the size of the thermal plume is normally about 71 ha (175 ac).

40
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The auxiliary system includes service water, fire protection, and other uses. This is about

2 1125 L/s (14,600 gpm) of the total water volume pumped by these systems. The service water

3 system consists of four service water pumps located in the screen house. The service water

4 system circulates lake water from the screen house to various heat exchangers and systems

5 inside the containment and the auxiliary, intermediate, turbine, and diesel generator buildings. 

6 The service water system supplies cooling water for various plant needs. It provides multiple

7 water source flow paths to ensure the availability of the ultimate heat sink, which is the lake.

8

9 The treated water system, one of the auxiliary systems, is used in the following secondary plant

10 subsystems: demineralized water production, secondary water chemical treatment, and

11 non-radioactive liquid waste disposal (floor drains, secondary sample effluents, etc.). The

12 treated water subsystems are non-safety-related auxiliary systems that support the functionality

13 of other process systems.

14

15 Domestic-quality potable water, at a flow of about 378,000 L/d (100,000 gpd), is purchased by

16 RG&E from the Ontario Water District for drinking, sanitary purposes, auxiliary boiler feed, and

17 condensate makeup and polishing. Sanitary waste from Ginna is discharged into the

18 wastewater treatment system operated by the town of Ontario.

19

20 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems

21

22 Ginna uses liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems to collect and

23 process the wastes that are by-products of reactor operation. These systems reduce the

24 radioactive effluents before they are released to the environment. Discharge streams are

25 appropriately monitored, and safety features are incorporated to preclude releases in excess of

26 the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20 and to maintain radioactive discharges to levels as low as

27 reasonably achievable (ALARA) according to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

28

29 Waste disposal facilities are designed so that discharge of effluents and offsite shipments are in

30 accordance with applicable U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations and

31 guidelines. Radioactive fluids entering the waste disposal system are collected in sumps and

32 tanks until a determination of subsequent treatment can be made. The waste is sampled and

33 analyzed to determine the quantity of radioactivity, and an isotopic breakdown is determined if

34 necessary. Before any attempt is made to discharge this waste, it is processed as required and

35 then released under controlled conditions. The system design and operation are directed

36 toward minimizing releases to unrestricted areas.

37

38 Radioactive gases are pumped by compressors through a manifold to one of the gas decay

39 tanks where the gases are held for a suitable period of time for decay. Cover gases in the

40 nitrogen blanketing system are reused to minimize gaseous wastes. During normal operation,
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-8 June 2003

1 gases are discharged intermittently at a controlled rate from these tanks through the monitored

2 plant vent. The system is provided with discharge controls so that environmental conditions do

3 not restrict the release of radioactive effluents to the atmosphere.

4

5 The waste disposal system is designed to package all solid waste in standard liners and other

6 approved packages for removal to burial or processing facilities. The types of solid waste that

7 are produced at Ginna, in addition to dry active waste, are sludge, oily waste, bead resin, and

8 filters.

9

10 Fuel rods that have exhausted a certain percentage of their fuel and then removed from the

11 reactor core for disposal are called spent fuel. Spent fuel is stored onsite in the spent fuel pool. 

12 As a result of the Phase-1 rerack and after allowing for a full core discharge capability,

13 sufficient positions remain in the spent fuel pool (based upon projected discharges of 44 fuel

14 assemblies per cycle) to store the projected spent fuel discharge resulting from operation

15 through the spring of 2010 (if Ginna were to continue operating beyond its current license

16 period, which ends in September 2009) (RG&E 2001a).

17

18 The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) (RG&E 2002b), which is subject to NRC

19 inspection, describes the methods and parameters used for calculating offsite doses resulting

20 from radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents. It provides monitoring alarm/trip points for

21 release of effluents, and operational limits for releasing liquid and gaseous effluents are

22 specified to ensure compliance with NRC regulations.

23

24 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

25

26 Liquid wastes are generated primarily by plant maintenance and service operations. Source

27 term influents to the waste disposal system have changed considerably since the original

28 design of the system. However, the current influent quantities into the system are smaller than

29 the quantities for which the system was originally designed. Actual liquid waste discharge

30 quantity figures are provided in the Radioactive Effluent Release Report required by the plant

31 technical specifications (RG&E 2001b).

32

33 Radioactive fluids entering the waste disposal system are collected in sumps and tanks until a

34 determination regarding subsequent treatment can be made. The fluids are sampled and

35 analyzed to determine the quantity of radioactivity, and an isotopic breakdown is determined if

36 necessary. Before any attempt is made to discharge, the waste is processed as required and

37 then released under controlled conditions. The system design and operation are directed

38 toward minimizing releases to unrestricted areas. Discharge streams are monitored and safety
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 features are incorporated to preclude releases in excess of the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and to

2 maintain radioactive discharges to ALARA levels according to the requirements of 10 CFR

3 Part 50, Appendix I.

4

5 The waste holdup tank (about 79,500 L [21,000 gal]) is the collection point for most primary

6 liquid wastes, via gravity drain where possible. Other drains, such as basement-level drains,

7 drain to a 1419-L (375-gal)-capacity sump tank that is then pumped to the waste holdup tank.

8

9 The bulk of the radioactive liquids discharged from the reactor coolant system are processed

10 and retained inside the plant by the chemical and volume control system recycle train. This

11 recycle approach minimizes liquid input to the waste disposal system, which processes

12 relatively small quantities of generally low-activity wastes. The processed water from waste

13 disposal, from which most of the radioactive material has been removed, is discharged through

14 a monitored line into the circulating water discharge. Liquid wastes are processed to remove

15 most of the radioactive materials.

16

17 From the waste holdup tank, the wastewater can be processed through a demineralization

18 system to one of two monitor tanks and then either released to the circulating water discharge

19 canal or recycled to the reactor makeup water tank. The waste holdup tank vent line is routed

20 through the auxiliary building charcoal filters. The spent resin is sluiced to a shipping container

21 for disposal.

22

23 The 1419-L (375-gal)-capacity auxiliary building sump tank serves as a collecting point for

24 equipment drain water discharged to the basement-level drain header. The drain header

25 receives equipment drains from the refueling water storage tank, residual heat exchangers,

26 chemical and volume control system holdup tanks and recirculation pump, gas stripper feed

27 pumps, boric acid evaporator, spent resin storage tanks, seal water filter, charging pump seal

28 leakoff tank, charging pumps, spray additive tank, seal water heat exchanger, and

29 nonregenerative heat exchanger.

30

31 The 189,200 L (50,000 gal), carbon-steel, high-conductivity waste tank is the collection point for

32 condensate polisher regenerant and high-conductivity wastes. These wastes are retained in

33 the tank prior to release into the circulating water system.

34

35 The retention tank is the collection point for the various building floor and equipment drains. 

36 The tank retains this waste prior to discharging it into the circulating water discharge. The

37 tank’s contents are continuously monitored for pH and radioactivity.

38

39 The neutralizing tank collects regenerant wastes from the primary makeup water demineralizer

40 system. The tank retains the waste for neutralization prior to discharge to the retention tank.
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-10 June 2003

1 The monitor tanks are part of the chemical and volume control system. These tanks retain the

2 waste until it is discharged to the circulating water discharge or recycled through the

3 demineralization system to the reactor makeup water tank. The contents of the tanks are

4 sampled for radioactivity prior to discharge.

5

6 Liquid batch releases are controlled individually, and each batch release is authorized based on

7 sample analysis and the existing dilution flow in the discharge canal. Plant procedures

8 establish the methods for sampling and analysis of each batch prior to release. A release rate

9 limit is calculated for each batch based on analysis, dilution flow, and all procedural conditions

10 being met before it is authorized for release. The waste stream entering the discharge canal is

11 continuously monitored, and the release would be automatically terminated if the preselected

12 monitor setpoint is exceeded (RG&E 2001a).

13

14 If gross beta analysis is performed for each batch release in lieu of gamma isotopic analysis, a

15 weekly composite for principal gamma emitters and iodine-131 is performed. Additional

16 monthly and quarterly composite analyses are performed as specified. The methodology and

17 equations used to calculate activity are included in the Ginna ODCM (RG&E 2002b).

18

19 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

20

21 The gaseous waste management system is designed to collect waste gases from various tanks

22 and sampling systems throughout the plant. The primary source of gas received by the waste

23 disposal system is cover gas displaced from the chemical and volume control system holdup

24 tanks as they fill with liquid. Gaseous wastes consist primarily of (1) hydrogen stripped from

25 coolant discharged to the chemical and volume control system holdup tanks during boron

26 dilution, (2) nitrogen and hydrogen gases purged from the chemical and volume control system

27 volume control tank when degassing the reactor coolant, and (3) nitrogen from the closed gas

28 blanketing system. The gas decay tank capacity allows a 45-day decay period before the

29 waste gas is discharged.

30

31 Radioactive gases are pumped to one of the gas decay tanks where they are held for a suitable

32 period of time. Cover gases in the nitrogen blanketing system are reused to minimize gaseous

33 wastes. During normal operation, gases are discharged intermittently at a controlled rate from

34 these tanks through the monitored plant vent. The system is provided with discharge controls

35 so that environmental conditions do not restrict the release of radioactive effluents to the

36 atmosphere.

37

38 Because the chemical and volume control system holdup tank cover gases must be replaced

39 when they are emptied during processing, provisions are made to return the gas from the gas

40 decay tanks to the chemical and volume control system holdup tanks via a reuse header.
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

The gas decay tanks are about 13,300 L (470 ft3 1 ) each, with a design pressure of 1.4 kPa

2 (200 psig), and normally operate between 0 and 750 kPa (0 and 110 psig). They can be lined

3 up for draining, gas analyzer sampling, or pressurization with nitrogen. Gas held in the decay

4 tanks can either be returned to the chemical and volume control system holdup tanks via the

5 reuse header, or it can be discharged to the atmosphere if it has decayed sufficiently for

6 release. Before a tank can be emptied to the environment, it is sampled and analyzed to

7 determine and record the activity to be released, and only then discharged to the plant vent at a

8 controlled rate through a radiation monitor. Samples are taken manually from the gas

9 analyzers. During release (through charcoal filters), a trip valve in the discharge line is closed

10 automatically by a high activity level indication in the plant vent.

11

12 The waste disposal panel contains pressure gauges for the tanks using cover gas and also for

13 the gas decay tanks and the vent header. A local plant stack radiation monitor is also provided

14 for the operator’s use during releases. All gas system manual operations and releases are

15 controlled locally at the waste disposal panel by the operator. The alarm conditions that are

16 associated with the gaseous waste management system are (1) moisture separator level,

17 (2) vent header pressure, (3) gas analyzer oxygen, (4) plant stack monitor radiation, (5) gas

18 decay tank pressure, and (6) gas decay tank new standby selection. High-pressure alarms are

19 installed on the tanks that vent to the vent header. An alarm on the waste disposal panel will

20 light an annunciator on the main control board.

21

22 An automatic gas analyzer is provided to monitor the concentrations of oxygen and hydrogen in

23 the cover gas of the waste disposal system and the chemical and volume control system tanks. 

24 The gas analyzer system sequentially selects samples from vessels of the waste disposal

25 system, analyzes the samples for oxygen and hydrogen, records the results of the analysis, and

26 provides alarms when a hazardous operating condition exists. Upon indication of a high oxygen

27 level, provisions are made to purge the systems to the gaseous waste system with an inert gas.

28

29 Gaseous effluent monitor setpoints are established at concentrations that permit some margin

30 for corrective action to be taken before exceeding offsite dose rates corresponding to 10 CFR

31 Part 20 limitations. The ODCM (RG&E 2002b) establishes the methods for sampling and

32 analysis for continuous ventilation releases and for containment purge releases, as well as the

33 methods for sampling and analysis prior to gas decay tank releases. The dose rates are

34 determined using methodology included in the Ginna ODCM (RG&E 2002b). Calculations were

35 performed in 1976 to demonstrate conformity with numerical guides on design objectives

36 presented in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 for gaseous effluents.

37
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-12 June 2003

1 2.1.4.3 Solid-Waste Processing

2

3 The waste disposal system is designed to package solid waste in standard liners and other

4 approved packages for removal to burial or processing facilities. In addition to dry active waste,

5 solid waste produced at Ginna includes sludge, oily waste, bead resin, and filters.

6

7 There are two onsite solid waste storage facilities with a combined capacity sufficient to

8 accommodate approximately 5 years of operation. The upper radioactive waste storage facility

9 typically provides temporary storage for plant solid waste. The high-integrity container storage

10 facility is a concrete-walled, open-topped structure designed as a shadow shield for the storage

11 of spent resin. The resin is stored in shielded casks that are ready for shipment. Additionally, a

12 reinforced concrete structure houses the old steam generators and is designed for long-term

13 storage.

14

15 Suspended solids and other sludges occasionally require processing. Oily waste is processed

16 at an offsite facility. An alternative method of disposal is to solidify and bury the waste at a

17 licensed burial site.

18

19 Bead resin is used to remove chemical impurities and radioactive contamination from the

20 reactor coolant, the chemical and volume control system, the spent fuel pool, and the liquid

21 waste processing system. When the resin is exhausted or reaches a radiation limit, the spent

22 resin is sluiced to one of two 4247-L (1122-gal) spent resin storage tanks. After sufficient resin

23 has been collected, a transport cask sufficient for the radioactivity present is ordered. Spent

24 resin is slurried from the spent resin storage tank into a liner with water used for sparging and

25 mixing the resin, and nitrogen gas pressure is used to move the resin. A representative sample

26 of the resin is obtained and the concentration of each radioisotope is calculated. After the resin

27 is dewatered, the liner is capped and sealed and the top is put on the transport cask. The cask

28 is surveyed for radiation and contamination and properly labeled and marked. The resin is then

29 transported to a licensed disposal facility.

30

31 When filters become saturated or have a high dose rate, they are dewatered and then replaced. 

32 The spent filters are placed in a high-integrity container or solidified in an approved media and

33 shipped in accordance with 10 CFR Part 71, 10 CFR Part 61, and burial site licenses. Dry

34 active waste is shipped in bulk form to a vendor for volume reduction and packaging for delivery

35 to the disposal site (RG&E 2001a).

36
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The Ginna ODCM (RG&E 2002b) controls the establishment of a program that outlines the

2 method for processing wet solid wastes and solidifying liquid wastes. It includes applicable

3 process parameters and evaluation methods used at Ginna to ensure compliance with the

4 requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 prior to shipment of containers of radioactive waste from the

5 site.

6

7 A radioactive waste sampling and analysis program has been instituted to ensure compliance

8 with 10 CFR Part 61. Scaling factors have been developed to calculate concentrations of hard9 to-measure isotopes from more easily determined isotopes. The scaling factors will enable

10 concentrations of all required isotopes to be determined for each radioactive waste shipment.

11

12 All radioactive waste is shipped to a licensed burial site in accordance with applicable NRC,

13 U.S. Department of Transportation, and State regulations, including burial site regulation

14 requirements. To ensure that personnel exposure is minimized, ALARA considerations are

15 addressed in all phases of the solidification process. The quantities shipped offsite for

16 processing and burial are reported to the NRC in the Radioactive Effluent Release Report

17 (RG&E 2001b).

18

19 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

20

21 Hazardous, non-radioactive waste is regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery

22 Act (RCRA) administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

23 (NYSDEC), which classifies Ginna as a “small quantity generator and a treater, storer and/or

24 disposer of hazardous waste.” Following their annual inspection in January 2001, NYSDEC

25 concluded that Ginna was in compliance with all New York State hazardous waste regulations

26 (NYSDEC 2001). This conclusion was consistent with their findings during prior annual

27 inspections.

28

29 The most common types of hazardous waste generated at Ginna are chemical degreasers,

30 acids, and caustics used to clean parts and rags and paper products contaminated with

31 chemicals regulated under RCRA. There are also chemical products that are discarded due to

32 procedural changes, and minor amounts of asbestos and equipment contaminated with

33 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) due to asbestos and PCB abatement efforts. RG&E’s 2001

34 Hazardous Waste Regulatory Fee form estimated that 1570 kg (1.73 tons) of hazardous waste

35 was produced at Ginna in 2000 (RG&E 2001c).

36

37 2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance

38

39 Maintenance activities conducted at Ginna include inspection, testing, and surveillance to

40 maintain the current licensing basis of the plant and ensure compliance with environmental and
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-14 June 2003

1 safety requirements. Certain activities can be performed while the reactor is operating, but

2 some activities require that the plant be shut down. Long-term outages are scheduled for

3 refueling and for certain types of repairs or maintenance, such as replacement of a major

4 component. RG&E refuels the Ginna nuclear unit on an 18-month schedule, generally resulting

5 in a refueling every other year. During refueling outages, site employment increases by as

6 many as 700 workers for temporary duty (typically lasting from 28 to 35 days) (RG&E 2002a).

7

8 An updated final safety analysis report supplement (RG&E 2002c) regarding the effects of

9 aging on systems, structures, and components was included as Appendix A of the Application

10 for Renewed Operating License, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. Chapter 3 and Appendix

11 B of the Ginna license renewal application describe the programs and activities that will manage

12 the effects of aging during the license renewal period. RG&E expects to conduct activities

13 related to the management of aging effects during plant operation or normal refueling and other

14 outages, but plans no outages specifically for the purpose of refurbishment. RG&E has no

15 plans to add additional full-time staff (non-outage workers) at the plant during the period of the

16 renewed license.

17

18 2.1.7 Power Transmission System

19

20 The Final Environmental Statement for the R.E. Ginna Plant, Unit 1. Rochester Gas and

21 Electric Corporation (AEC 1973) describes four transmission lines, running in the same right-of22 way, that connect the plant with the transmission system. RG&E has not made any

23 modifications to either the right-of-way or the transmission lines since original installation

24 (RG&E 2002a). Ginna generates electricity at 19 kilovolts (kV). This voltage is stepped up to

25 115 kV at the plant and is transmitted 1.0 km (0.6 mi) by four 115-kV underground cables to

26 Substation 13A, which is located south of Ginna on the south side of Lake Road (Figure 2-4). 

27 Four 115-kV overhead transmission lines were installed as a direct result of the construction,

28 startup, and operation of Ginna. These lines emanate from Substation 13A and run

29 approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) in the same right-of-way in a southerly direction to connect to the

30 transmission grid at Substation 204 (Fruitland), which is on the south side of NYS Route 104

31 (Table 2-1). These lines are supported by wooden structures with two lines per structure. 

32 There is a fifth 115-kV line emanating from Substation 13A that serves as a distribution line and

33 is located on its own structures on the east side of the transmission lines right-of-way between

34 Substations 13A and 204. This fifth line was not installed as a direct result of construction,

35 startup, or operation of Ginna.

36
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Figure 2-4. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission Lines
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-16 June 2003

1 The 500-foot-wide transmission lines right-of-way from Ginna to Substation 204 is owned by

2 RG&E. The portion of the right-of-way between Substation 13A and Substation 204 is in the

3 town of Ontario and Wayne County and has road crossings at Brick Church Road, Kenyon

4 Road, North Slocum Road, and NYS Route 104 (Figure 2-2). Locked gates limit access to the

5 right-of-way from roadways. Land use in this area is predominantly agricultural with only a few

6 homes adjacent to the right-of-way.

7

8 The transmission lines right-of-way is characterized by low- to medium-sized shrubs with an

9 understory of grasses and forbs, and with trees at the edge of the right-of-way. RG&E

10 manages the right-of-way in accordance with a New York State Public Service Commission11 approved long-range vegetation management plan (RG&E 1995). This plan uses selected

12 management techniques with the goal of maintaining a low-growing vegetative community. A

13 relatively thick shrub layer is maintained, with the intention of discouraging the sprouting and

14 growth of larger trees within the right-of-way. Mowing or brush cutting is rare and, when done,

15 is typically performed only in small areas as needed to clear access to towers. Trees that may

16 interfere with the electrical conductors are either trimmed or are cut at the base. Herbicides are

17 generally only used as spot applications to prevent tree or shrub regrowth. RG&E uses only

18 non-restricted-use herbicides, and all applications are performed under the supervision of

19 licensed applicators. RG&E maintains a vegetative buffer along stream crossings and does not

20 mow or treat vegetation with herbicides within wetland areas or stream crossings unless

21 specific, individual trees need to be trimmed or removed to maintain safe operation of the right22 of-way.

23

24 Table 2-1. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission Lines Right-of-Way

25

26 Substation

Number

of Lines kV

Approximate

Distance

Corridor

Direction

Corridor

Width Corridor Area

km mi m ft hectares (acres)

27 204 (Fruitland) 4 115 5.6 3.5 South 152 500 85 212

28 Source: RG&E 2002a

29

30 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment

31

32 Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general descriptions of the environment near Ginna. 

33 Detailed descriptions also are provided, where needed, to support the analysis of potential

34 environmental impacts of refurbishment and operation during the renewal term, as discussed in

35 Chapters 3 and 4. Section 2.2.9 describes the historic and archaeological resources in the

36 area, and Section 2.2.10 describes possible impacts of other Federal project activities.
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 2.2.1 Land Use

2

3 Ginna is in the town of Ontario, New York, in the northwest corner of Wayne County and on the

4 south shore of Lake Ontario. Surface-water features onsite are limited to Mill Creek, which

5 enters the site from the south, and Deer Creek, which enters the site from the west. These two

6 creeks join southwest of the plant and empty into Lake Ontario just east of the plant.

7

8 Ginna is about 32 km (20 mi) east of the center of Rochester and 64 km (40 mi) west9 southwest of Oswego. The immediate area around the site is rural. There are no substantial

10 population centers, industrial complexes, airports, transportation arteries, or parks within a

11 4.8-km (3.0-mi) radius. The largest community within 16 km (10 mi) of the site is Webster,

12 located in Monroe County approximately 11.2 km (7.0 mi) west-southwest, with a town

13 population of about 38,000 (RG&E 2002a). The largest metropolitan area within 80 km (50 mi)

14 is Rochester, with a population of about 220,000. Approximately, 48 percent of the workforce

15 at Ginna lives in Wayne County and 44 percent lives in Monroe County. The remaining

16 8 percent live elsewhere.

17

18 The 197-ha (488-ac) Ginna site is owned by RG&E. The land at the site and along the

19 transmission line right-of-way is zoned by the town of Ontario for limited industrial uses, while

adjacent lands are zoned for large lot residential uses (exceeding 1858 m2 [20,000 ft2 20 ). The

21 original site area was 134 ha (338 ac) at the time of preparation of the 1972 Environmental

22 Report for Ginna (RG&E 1972). During July 1976, approximately 49 ha (122 ac) of additional

23 land was acquired from an adjoining farm, and another 6.7 ha (16.0 ac) was purchased during

24 1988 on the western side of the site. Correspondingly, the shoreline extent has increased from

25 about 1.6 to 2.4 km (1.0 to 1.5 mi). More recently, during 2002, a 68-m (224-ft)-wide strip along

26 the western boundary and frontage at the corner of Lake and Slocum Roads was sold by RG&E

27 to a developer who is building a small subdivision. Approximately half of the site is leased and

28 currently is used for agricultural production, primarily apple orchards and, to a lesser degree,

29 corn and hay fields. Another quarter of the site has been left relatively undisturbed, having a

30 combination of open fields, shrub brush, and trees. The remaining quarter of the site has been

31 developed for the power station and ancillary facilities, with about 10 ha (25 ac) enclosed within

32 the security fences. 

33

34 There are three occupied farm houses on the Ginna site, one of which has an occupied out35 building. These houses are owned by RG&E, and the occupants have leases that are

36 renewable annually at the option of the RG&E. Two of the houses are located 1250 m (4100 ft)

37 and 884 m (2900 ft), respectively, southwest of the plant, while the third house and its

38 associated out-building are about 701 m (2300 ft) and 579 m (1900 ft) southeast of the plant,

39 respectively. All are located beyond the exclusion area boundary.

40
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-18 June 2003

1 Unoccupied buildings owned by RG&E include the Brookwood Estate Manor House (used as an

2 employee meeting facility) and garage, located about 274 m (900 ft) east of the plant and

3 fronting the lake; horse barns (used for storage), located about 457 m (1500 ft) south of the

4 plant; and a house (used as a fitness-for-duty center), located about 488 m (1600 ft) south of

5 the plant. While there are currently no plans for further development on the site, additional

6 security features have been added, primarily along the perimeter of the plant area. The

7 addition of these security features are unrelated to and independent of license renewal.

8

9 Webster Park, a 223-ha (550-ac) Monroe County park on the south shore of Lake Ontario, is

10 approximately 9.6 km (6.0 mi) west of the site. Facilities include a fishing pier, campground,

11 day-use shelters, lodges and cabins, picnic areas, tennis courts, baseball and soccer fields,

12 hiking, and cross-country ski trails. Approximately 56 km (35 mi) from Ginna, in southeastern

13 Wayne County along the border with Cayuga and Seneca counties, is the Montezuma

14 Wetlands Complex. The 14,569-ha (36,000-ac) complex includes the Federally owned

15 Montezuma Wildlife Preserve, state-owned Northern Montezuma Wildlife Management Area,

16 lands owned by conservation groups, and private property. The area contains marshes and

17 impoundments, forested wetlands, old fields, meadows, farm fields, and woodlands

18 (RG&E 2002a).

19

20 2.2.2 Water Use

21

22 Lake Ontario is the source of water for cooling and most auxiliary water systems. Ginna uses a

23 once-through condenser cooling system with a submerged offshore intake and a surface

24 shoreline discharge. The average daily withdrawal from and return to the lake for the cooling

25 water and other service water systems is about 22,370 L/s (354,600 gpm).

26

27 In addition, potable water, at a flow of about 378,000 L/d (100,000 gpd), is purchased by RG&E

28 from the Ontario Water District for drinking, sanitary purposes, auxiliary boiler feed, and

29 condensate makeup and polishing. Sanitary waste from Ginna is discharged to the wastewater

30 treatment system operated by the town of Ontario.

31

32 2.2.3 Water Quality

33

34 Lake Ontario provides water of a quality sufficient to serve a variety of needs, including

35 propagation of fish and wildlife and contact recreation. However, the lake is listed on the New

36 York State 2002 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters as impaired due to fish consumption

37 advisories as a result of contamination by PCBs, Mirex, and Dioxin.

38

39 Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the water quality of the plant effluents is regulated through the

40 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Division of Environmental
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Permits within the NYSDEC is delegated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

2 issue NPDES permits, which it refers to as State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

3 (SPDES) permits. The current permit (NY0000493) was issued February 1, 2003, and is due to

4 expire February 1, 2008. Any new regulations promulgated by the EPA or the State of New

5 York would be reflected in future permits.

6

7 The current permit requires monitoring of discharges from the circulating cooling water system,

8 house service boiler blowdown system, the high-conductivity water tank discharge system

9 (including steam generator blowdown), and the radiation waste holdup and treatment system. 

10 Discharge limitations exist on flow, maximum discharge temperature, incremental temperature

11 difference, chlorine, boron, oil and grease, suspended solids, pH, iron, copper, zinc, arsenic,

12 and chromium.

13

14 2.2.4 Air Quality

15

16 Ginna has a typical northeastern-U.S. humid climate that is moderated by the influence of Lake

17 Ontario. The nearest national weather station is at the Greater Rochester International Airport

18 (ROC) located about 32 km (20 mi) southwest and inland from the site. The ROC data define

19 the regional climate. The local climate shows lake-effect influences on temperature, moisture,

20 and precipitation.

21

22 Climatological records from 1971 to 2000 at ROC indicate that the normal daily maximum

23 temperatures for the region range from -0.6C (31.0F) in January to a high of 27.2C (81.0F)

24 in July (NOAA 2002). Normal minimum temperatures range from -8.5C (17.0F) in January to

25 15.6C (60.0F) in July.

26

27 The regional prevailing winds are from the west-southwest. Based on monitoring data for the

28 period 1992 to 1994 at Ginna, local winds are predominantly from south to west-northwest with

29 the peak direction from the south-southwest. The average annual precipitation measured at

30 ROC is 86.31 cm (33.98 in.). Based on statistics for the 30 years from 1954 through 1983, the

probability of a tornado striking the site is expected to be about 2 × 10-5 31 per year (Ramsdell and

32 Andrews 1986).

33

34 Locally, weather systems coming from Canada tend to pick up moisture as they cross Lake

35 Ontario and deposit it within 24 to 32 km (15 to 20 mi) of the shoreline. Regional snowfall, as

36 recorded at ROC, averages approximately 236 cm (93 in.) per year. Locations closer to the

37 lake, such as the Ginna site, tend to experience many "lake-effect" snow showers and may

38 have more snowfall than recorded at ROC.

39
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-20 June 2003

1 Wind energy potential along the shore of Lake Ontario in the vicinity of Ginna is rated as 3 to 4

2 on a scale of 1 to 7, with a rating of 5 estimated to exist offshore (Elliott et al. 1986). These

3 ratings indicate that wind is a viable energy resource in the area.

4

5 The air quality in the region is designated as better than national standards, in attainment, or

6 unclassified for all criteria pollutants in 40 CFR 81.316 and 40 CFR 81.328. The nearest area

7 of nonattainment is Niagara County, New York, which is classified as marginal for ozone

8 (EPA 2003a). There are no mandatory Class I Federal areas in which visibility is an important

9 value designated in 40 CFR Part 81 within 160 km (100 mi) of Ginna. According to the 1991 to

10 2000 data from the EPA, the number of days when the air quality index was greater than 100

11 for ozone in the Rochester Metropolitan Statistical Area (i.e., “Poor Air Quality”) ranged from a

12 low of 0 in 1993 and 1996 to a high of 16 in 1991 (EPA 2003b). The EPA reports 1 day in 2001

13 when the air quality index for ozone was higher than 100 for this area. 

14

15 Emissions from diesel generators, boilers, and other activities and facilities associated with

16 Ginna operations are regulated under New York state and Federal regulations. Emissions from

17 these Ginna sources are lower than the thresholds specified in the applicable New York State

18 and Federal air quality regulations. Therefore, RG&E is not required to have air quality permits

19 for Ginna.

20

21 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources

22

23 Aquatic resources in the vicinity of Ginna are associated with Lake Ontario, which is the

24 smallest of the Great Lakes and the eleventh largest lake in the world in terms of volume. The

25 lake is approximately 306 km (190 mi) long by 80 km (50 mi) wide, with a surface area of about

19,000 km2 (7340 mi2 26 ). The maximum depth is 244 m (802 ft) and the mean depth is 86 m

27 (283 ft), which is greater than the other Great Lakes, except Lake Superior. Depths of 12 to

28 30 m (40 to 100 ft) are within 0.6 to 1.2 km (1.0 to 2.0 mi) off the southern shore in the area of

29 Ginna. The major source of water for the lake is from Lake Erie via the Niagara River. Water

30 flows from Lake Ontario via the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic Ocean. The predominant

31 surface currents in front of the station are west to east, and the flows tend to swing towards the

32 southern shoreline (RG&E 2002a). 

33

34 There are also two creeks that cross the property of the station and the southern shore of Lake

35 Ontario. Mill Creek crosses the site from the south and flows into Deer Creek. Deer Creek

36 enters the site from the west, joins with Mill Creek, and then flows into Lake Ontario. Deer

37 Creek is a wet-weather stream that dries up in the summer months so there is no direct flow

38 into Lake Ontario during that time of the year (RG&E 2002a). Mill Creek, while flowing year39 round, does not have sufficient flow to cross over a rise in the land around the mouth of the

40 creek during the summer months. Flow from Mill Creek is possible through the subsurface;
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 however, aquatic resources could not easily swim in and out of Mill Creek to Lake Ontario

2 during the summer. These creeks do not receive water from Ginna on a routine basis except

3 for occasional storm water runoff. There is a surface impoundment for emergency use that

4 could discharge into Deer Creek.

5

6 The aquatic resources associated with Ginna, especially those in Lake Ontario, are an

7 important resource for fishing, recreation, navigation, tourism, and conservation. Currently, the

8 principal fish in Lake Ontario’s offshore pelagic fish community are alewife (Alosa

9 pseudoharengus) and Atlantic rainbow smelt (Osmerus m. mordax), and their salmonid

10 predators, including chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch) and Atlantic

11 salmon (Salmo salar), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), and brown

12 trout (S. trutta). Other less abundant pelagic species include threespine stickleback

13 (Gasterosteus aculeatus), emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides) and gizzard shad (Dorosoma

14 cepedianum) (Schaner et al. 2002). The principal fish in the offshore benthic community

15 include lake trout, lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). 

16 Additional species include burbot (Lota lota), round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) and

17 deepwater sculpin (Triglopsis thompsonii) (Hoyle and Schaner 2002). The salmon and trout

18 populations are maintained chiefly by stocking programs conducted by the NYSDEC and the

19 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. While these stocking programs were initially designed

20 to control non-native fish overpopulation, the salmon and trout are now an important

21 commercial and recreational resource resulting in annual expenditures of over $70 million (Kraft

22 and Carothers 2002).

23

24 The Lake Ontario fish community that existed when Ginna began operations during the early

25 1970s reflected the changes to the fishery over the previous 150 years. The Lake Ontario

26 fishery has been significantly altered over the past 150 years due to frequent introductions of

27 non-native species. Non-native species such as the alewife, rainbow smelt, burbot, threespine

28 stickleback, and several salmon species have profoundly altered the Lake Ontario fishery over

29 the past 100 years. Between the mid-1800s and the early 1970s, populations of important

30 species such as lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), Atlantic salmon, lake trout, lake herring

31 (Coregonus artedi), burbot, and deepwater ciscoes (C. johannae) had all collapsed. This

32 collapse has been attributed to such factors as overfishing, invasion of sea lamprey

33 (Petromyzon marinus), habitat loss, and degraded water quality or eutrophication. The open

34 lake fish community in 1970 was dominated by planktivores such as alewife and smelt due to

35 the lack of large predatory species. Annual alewife die-offs were common at that time, which

36 contributed to the impaired conditions of the lake and shoreline. During the mid-1970s, New

37 York State and the Province of Ontario instituted a salmonid stocking program of up to 8 million

38 fish per year aimed at using the extensive forage base of alewife and smelt. For the next

39 20 years, this program was very successful in both developing a world-class sport fishery on

40 Lake Ontario as well as controlling the forage fish population (RG&E 2002a).
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-22 June 2003

1 Water quality in Lake Ontario has changed since the initial plans for Ginna during 1972. There

2 has been a substantial decrease in nutrient loading (particularly phosphorus) and the presence

3 of persistent toxic chemicals. As the water quality has improved, the aquatic community has

4 responded. Other factors in the change of the aquatic resources within the lake over time

5 include control measures for alewife (including the salmonid stocking program), the introduction

6 of non-native aquatic species, ongoing anthropogenic impacts, and natural climate variability

7 (RG&E 2002a).

8

9 Evidence of the recent changes in aquatic resources can be seen in the dramatic drop of fish

10 abundance, increases in Cladophora sp. (algae), and increases in non-native mollusks of the

11 genus Dreissena (zebra and quagga mussels). Fish abundance decreased substantially

12 around 1977 when controls for alewife started to take effect. While numbers of fish have

13 decreased based on data collected by RG&E and by the NYSDEC, the diversity of aquatic

14 species has not changed much and even appears in the last 4 years to be on an upward trend

15 around Ginna. C. sp. have been noted to be growing at greater depths in Lake Ontario as the

16 water clarity has improved over the last decade. Mollusks have also been found to be

17 increasing in numbers based on studies by RG&E and by the NYSDEC (RG&E 2002a).

18

19 Ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) studies conducted at the Ginna site during 1977 and

20 1978 characterize the site with respect to utilization of the Lake Ontario shoreline adjacent to

21 the Ginna site for fish spawning and as a nursery area. More than 90 percent of the fish larvae

22 found during both years were alewives. Also found both years, in the 1-5 percent range, were

23 carp/goldfish (Cyprinus carpio/Carassius auratus), smelt, and Johnny darters (Etheostoma

24 nigrum). All of these species are common components of the local fish community, and typical

25 of the fish communities found along the near shore areas of Lake Ontario’s southern shoreline. 

26 Conversely, there were no indications that the Ginna site area was unique to, or preferred by,

27 any species as a spawning or nursery area.

28

29 Ginna is not adjacent to any significant bays or other habitat features that may provide unique

30 or important spawning or nursery areas. Studies conducted within Lake Ontario near

31 Chaumont, Sodus, and Irondequoit Bays during 1997 and 1998, show that alewife continues to

32 dominate the ichthyoplankton population and that alewife-spawning locations are ubiquitous. 

33 Of particular interest, given the dramatic reduction in productivity within the lake, is the fact that

34 alewife larval densities found during both the late 1970s and the late 1990s were within the

35 same order of magnitude. This indicates the density of alewife larvae available for recruitment

36 have remained fairly constant over time. Further, these recent studies found similar species to

37 those collected at the Ginna intake during the 1970s, and generally support the previously

38 stated conclusions concerning the spawning, nursery, and habitat conditions of the Ginna site

39 (RG&E 2002a).

40
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 There are no aquatic species Federally listed as threatened or endangered under the

2 Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the vicinity of Ginna. Through consultation with U.S. Fish

3 and Wildlife Service (FWS), no aquatic species (fish, mollusks, or plants) were identified in

4 Wayne County or any counties near Wayne County (FWS 2002).

5

6 There are two State-listed aquatic species known to occur within Wayne County (Table 2-2).

7 Through discussions with NYSDEC, one endangered fish was determined to be near Wayne

8 County (NYSDEC 2003a). The pugnose shiner (Notropis anogenus) was reported from Sodus

9 Bay of Lake Ontario, approximately 32 km (20 mi) west of Ginna. However, the pugnose shiner

10 has not been reported near Ginna, nor has it ever been captured during studies conducted by

11 RG&E (RG&E 2002a). The lake sturgeon is a threatened species within New York state and

12 might be found near Ginna (NYSDEC 2003a). One sturgeon was netted several years ago by

13 NYSDEC at Pultneyville, a village approximately 9.6 km (6 mi) east of Ginna. No sturgeon has

14 ever been reported from the vicinity of Ginna (RG&E 2002a).

15

16 Table 2-2. Aquatic Species Listed by the New York State Department of Environmental

17 Conservation as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern that are Known to

18 Occur Within Wayne County, New York

19

20 Scientific Name Common Name State Status

21 Fish

22 Notropis anogenus pugnose shiner Endangered

23 Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon Threatened

24 Source: (NYSDEC 2003a).

25

26 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources

27

28 The Ginna site lies within the eastern great lakes/Hudson lowlands ecoregion (Omernik 1987). 

29 Prior to European settlement, the area was dominated by beech-maple forest that was typical of

30 the region. Throughout the region, much of this forest type has been converted to other

31 vegetation types, primarily various forms of farmland such as orchards, pastures, or crop land

32 (AEC 1973).

33

34 The site and its associated transmission line right-of-way are surrounded by a variety of very

35 typical habitat types found in central and western New York state: mature woodlands,

36 meadows, and early- and late-stage old fields. In addition, significant acreage is farmed for

37 grains or is in use for apple production. Portions of the property and the transmission line right38 of-way are currently farmed under a lease arrangement with local residents. The other “natural”

39 areas within the boundaries of the site are left to go through the natural succession process and
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-24 June 2003

1 are not actively managed by the applicant (RG&E 2002a). There are no State or Federally

2 regulated wetlands found either at the Ginna site or on the transmission line right-of-way.

3

4 The wildlife species that occur at the Ginna site and transmission line right-of-way are also very

5 typical of those found in similar habitats throughout central and western New York state. 

6 Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), gray squirrel (Sciurus

7 carolinensis), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), grey (Urocyon

8 cinereoargenteus) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes), Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), and

9 meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) are commonly found mammals. Numerous bird

10 species, including the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), American kestrel (Falco

11 sparverius), screech owl (Otus asio), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), bluebird (Sialia sialis),

12 American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), and crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), are common. 

13 Amphibians common to the site include American toad (Bufo americanus), leopard frog

14 (Rana pipiens), green frog (R. clamitans), and wood frog (R. sylvatica). Reptiles include the

15 eastern garter snake (Thamnophis s. sirtalis) and ribbon snake (T. sauritus) (Dames and Moore

16 1971).

17

18 No Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species are known to occur in the

19 vicinity of Ginna or its associated transmission line right-of-way. Table 2-3 lists species known

20 to occur or potentially occur in Wayne County. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) will

21 occasionally be observed in the vicinity, but the nearest known nesting site is approximately

22 88 km (55 mi) southeast near Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge (NYSDEC 2003a).

23

24 Table 2-3. Terrestrial Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered by the U.S. Fish

25 and Wildlife Service that Occur or Potentially Occur Within Wayne County,

26 New York

27

28 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a)

29 Reptiles

30 Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle T

31 Birds

32 Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T

33 Charadrius melodus piping plover E

34 Mammals

35 Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E

36 Plants

37 Isotria medeoloides small-whorled pogonia T

38 Plantanthera leucophaea prairie fringed orchid T

39 (a) E = endangered, T = threatened

40 Source: FWS 2002.

41

42
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) could potentially forage on the shoreline near the

2 Ginna site, but it has never been reported in the vicinity and is not known to nest in the area. 

3 The nearest designated critical habitat for piping plover is approximately 145 km (90 mi) from

4 the Ginna site on the eastern shore of Lake Ontario (FWS 2001).

5

6 The Ginna site is within the historic range of the bog turtle (Clemmys mulenbergii), but there are

7 very few known populations remaining along the south coast of Lake Ontario. The nearest

8 known populations are in northern Seneca and in western Oswego Counties (NYSDEC 2003c). 

9 Suitable bog turtle habitat is not known to occur on the Ginna Site or its associated

10 transmission line right-of-way (FWS 2000).

11

12 The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is thought to potentially occur in almost all of New York state,

13 although firm knowledge of the distribution is primarily limited to eight known wintering sites, all

14 located well east of the Ginna site (NYSDEC 1998). Some studies indicate that, although the

15 Indiana bat range extends from the west and south across Pennsylvania to eastern New York,

16 western New York is clearly excluded from the distribution maps (Humphrey 1982; Cope 1999). 

17 Relatively little is known about the summer range or habitat requirements of this species.

18

19 Neither of the two plant species listed in Table 2-3 (small-whorled pogonia [Isotaria

20 medeoloides] and eastern prairie fringed orchid [Plantanthera leucophaea]) has been observed

21 recently in New York State, and neither is likely to be present in the vicinity of the Ginna site. 

22 The FWS officially lists the small-whorled pogonia as potentially occurring in New York State

23 (FWS 2002), but the listing documentation for this species indicates only historic records in

24 New York State (FWS 1994). The NYSDEC does not list Wayne County in its list of potential

25 counties of occurrence for the small-whorled pogonia (NYSDEC 2002). The NYSDEC does list

26 Wayne County as a potential county of occurrence for the eastern prairie fringed orchid, but

27 also indicates that there are no confirmed occurrences of this species anywhere in New York

28 State (NYSDEC 2002). The FWS listing documentation for the eastern prairie fringed orchid

29 also indicates that this species has not been introduced in New York State (FWS 1989).

30

31 Additional species that are listed by NYSDEC as threatened, endangered, rare, or otherwise of

32 concern in New York state that are known to occur in Wayne County are listed in Table 2-4. 

33 None of these species are known to occur at Ginna or within the transmission lines right-of-way. 

34 The NYSDEC has also listed numerous additional species that it considers as potentially

35 occurring in Wayne County (NYSDEC 2002). Because there are no recent records of any of

36 these additional species from Wayne County, the staff did not consider these further.

37

38
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-26 June 2003

1 Table 2-4. Terrestrial Species Listed by the New York State Department of Environmental

2 Conservation as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern that Occur

3 Within Wayne County, New York

4

5 Scientific Name Common Name State Status(a)

6 Reptiles

7 Clemmys guttata spotted turtle SC

8 Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle E

9 Apalone spinifera spinifera eastern spiny softshell turtle SC

10 Birds

11 Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk SC

12 Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk SC

13 Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern SC

14 Caprimulgus vociferus whip-poor-will SC

15 Charadrius melodus piping plover E

16 Childonias niger black tern E

17 Chordeiles minor common nighthawk SC

18 Circus cyaneus northern harrier T

19 Dendroica cerulea cerulean warbler SC

20 Eremophila alpestris horned lark SC

21 Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T

22 Melanerpes erythrocephalus red-headed woodpecker SC

23 Vermivora chrysoptera golden-winged warbler SC

24 Mammals

25 Myotis leibii eastern small-footed myotis SC

26 Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E

27 Neotoma magister Allegheny woodrat E

28 Syvilagus transitionalis New England cottontail SC

29 Plants

30 Aster borealis rush aster T

31 Carex frankii Frank’s sedge E

32 Diplachne maritima salt-meadow grass E

33 Isotria medeoloides small-whorled pogonia E

34 Listera australis southern twayblade E

35 Plantanthera leucophoea eastern prarie fringed orchid E

36 Sacheuchzeria palustris pod grass R

37 Scirpus maritimus seaside bulrush E

38 (a) State status: E = endangered, T = threatened, SC = species of special concern, R = rare.

39 Source: NYSDEC 2002, 2003b, 2003c.
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts

2

3 RG&E conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) at the Ginna site. 

4 Through this program, radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the environment are

5 monitored, documented, and compared to the appropriate standards. The objectives of the

6 REMP are to 

7

8 provide representative measurements of radiation and radioactive materials in the

9 exposure pathways and of the radionuclides that have the highest potential for radiation

10 exposures to members of the public

11

12 supplement the radiological effluent monitoring program by verifying that the

13 measurable concentrations of radioactive materials and levels of radiation are not higher

14 than expected on the basis of effluent measurements and the modeling of the

15 environmental exposure pathways.

16

17 Radiological releases are summarized in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating

18 Report (RG&E 2001d) and the Radioactive Effluent Release Report (RG&E 2001b). The limits

19 for all radiological releases are specified in the Ginna ODCM (RG&E 2002b), and these limits

20 are designed to meet Federal standards and requirements. The REMP includes monitoring of

21 the aquatic environment (fish, invertebrates, and shoreline sediment), atmospheric environment

22 (airborne radioiodine, gross beta, and gamma), terrestrial environment (vegetation), and direct

23 radiation.

24

25 RG&E’s review of historical data on releases and the resultant dose calculations revealed that

26 the doses to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of Ginna have been a small fraction of

27 the limits specified in the Ginna ODCM (RG&E 2002b) to meet EPA radiation standards in

28 40 CFR Part 190 as required by 10 CFR 20.1301(d). For 2001, dose estimates were calculated

29 based on actual liquid and gaseous effluent release data (RG&E 2001b). Calculations were

30 performed by RG&E using the plant effluent release data, onsite meteorological data, and

31 appropriate pathways identified in the ODCM (RG&E 2002b).

32

33 During 2001, Ginna did not release any strontium-90 or strontium-89 in either its gaseous or

34 liquid effluents. In 1999 and 2000, there were minor gaseous releases of strontium-89 

(1.3 x 10-6 MBq [3.42 x 10-11 Ci] during 1999 and 6.3 x 10-3 MBq [1.69 x 10-7 35 Ci] during 2000). 

36 An assessment of doses to the maximally exposed individual from gaseous and liquid effluents

37 was performed by RG&E for locations representing the maximum dose. In all cases, doses

38 were well below the technical specification limits as defined in the ODCM (RG&E 2002b). 

39 During 1999 and 2000, doses had been elevated above 1998 levels due to gaseous effluent

40 activity from a fuel cladding defect in cycle 28 (May 1999 to October 2000). Following the
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-28 June 2003

1 repair of the fuel cladding defect in cycle 29, dose levels during 2001 were more consistent with

2 those in 1998.

3

4 The RG&E assessment of radiation dose to the general public from radioactive effluents

5 assumed a person is located in the vicinity of the National Guard outpost for 10 hours/day,

6 5 days/week, 50 weeks/year. Although the National Guard post is just within the site boundary,

7 it houses non-RG&E employees who are considered “members of the public.” Doses were

8 assessed based on the noble gas exposure, inhalation, ground-plane, and ingestion pathways. 

9 For 2001, the total body dose was estimated to be 0.048 mSv (4.8 mrem) total body

(0.048 mSv [4.8 mrem] direct radiation plus 1.4 x 10-4 mSv [1.4 x 10-2 10 mrem] all other pathways)

and 2.3 x 10-4 mSv (2.3 x 10-2 11 mrem) thyroid (maximum organ dose). The ODCM

12 (RG&E 2002b) and 40 CFR Part 190 limits for the total dose to members of the public due to

13 radiation and radioactivity from uranium fuel cycle sources are <0.25 mSv (<25 mrem) total

14 body or any organ and <0.75 mSv (<75 mrem) thyroid for a calendar year. Therefore, doses

15 from Ginna are only a fraction of the regulatory limit.

16

17 The applicant does not anticipate any significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases or

18 exposures from Ginna operations during the renewal period; therefore, the impacts to the

19 environment are not expected to change.

20

21 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors

22

23 The staff reviewed the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002a) and information obtained from several county,

24 city, and economic development staff during a site visit to Wayne and Monroe Counties from

25 November 4 through 7, 2002. The following information describes the economy, population,

26 and communities near Ginna.

27

28 2.2.8.1 Housing

29

30 Ginna employs approximately 500 people on a full-time basis, with more than 80 percent of the

31 normal operating workforce composed of RG&E employees. Approximately 48 percent of

32 these employees (plant and contract employees) live in Wayne County, 44 percent in Monroe

33 County, 2.5 percent in Ontario County, 1.6 percent in Livingston County, with the remainder

34 living in other locations (Table 2-5). Because approximately 92 percent of the Ginna employees

35 live in Wayne and Monroe counties and Wayne County is where the plant is located, the focus

36 of the socioeconomic analysis is on these two counties.

37
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 2-5. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Employee and Contractor Employee

2 Residence by County in New York State

3

4 County Number of Personnel Percent of Total Personnel

5 Wayne 240 48

6 Monroe 220 44

7 Ontario 15 3

8 Livingston 10 2

9 Other 15 3

10 Total 500 100

11 Source: RG&E 2002a

12

13 RG&E refuels Ginna on an 18-month cycle. During refueling, the number of employees

14 increases by as many as 700 temporary workers for a period of 30 to 40 days. These

15 temporary employees primarily stay at hotels, motels, and temporary rental housing available in

16 Wayne and Monroe counties (RG&E 2002a).

17

18 Table 2-6 provides the number of housing units and housing unit vacancies for Wayne and

19 Monroe counties for 1990 and 2000. Wayne County had approximately 38,800 housing units

20 in 2000, with a vacancy rate less than 10 percent. Monroe County, which has a larger

21 population base and a relatively stronger employment market, had a vacancy rate of

22 approximately 

23

24 Table 2-6. Total Occupied and Vacant (Available) Housing Units in Wayne and Monroe

25 Counties in New York State, 1990 and 2000

26

27 1990 2000 Approximate Percent Change

28 WAYNE COUNTY

29 Housing Units 35,188 38,767 10

30 Occupied Units 31,977 34,908 9

31 Vacant Units 3,211 3,859 20

32 MONROE COUNTY

33 Housing Units 285,524 304,388 6

34 Occupied Units 271,944 286,512 5

35 Vacant Units 13,580 17,876 32

36 Sources: USCB 1990, 2000

37
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-30 June 2003

1 6 percent in 2000 based on a housing stock of approximately 304,400 units (USCB 2000a). 

2 Wayne and Monroe counties are not subject to growth-control measures that limit housing

3 development.

4

5 Table 2-7 contains data on population, estimated population, and annual population growth

6 rates for Wayne and Monroe Counties. Both counties saw similar growth in population during

7 the 1990s.

8

9 Table 2-7. Population Growth in Monroe and Wayne Counties in New York State from

10 1970 to 2020

11

12 Monroe County Wayne County

13 Population

Percent Change (in

10-year increments) Population

Percent Change (in

10-year increments)

1970(a) 14 711,917 -- 79,404 –

1980(a) 15 702,238 (-1.4) 84,581 6.4

1990(a) 16 713,968 1.7 89,123 5.4

2000(a) 17 735,343 3.0 93,765 5.2

2010(b) 18 735,708 (est) 0.0 96,931 (est) 3.4

2020(b) 19 742,150 (est) 1.0 98,454 (est) 1.6

20 -- = No data available.

21 (a) USCB 1995, USCB 2000a

22 (b) GFLRPC 1997

23

24 2.2.8.2 Public Services

25

26 Public services include water supply, education, and transportation.

27

28 Water Supply

29

30 The water system of Monroe County is organized at a county level by the Monroe County Water

31 Authority (MCWA), while Wayne County’s water system is organized mainly at a town level. 

32 Although there is no available estimate of the percentage of households serviced by private

33 wells in the two counties, officials from the Ontario Water District estimate that no more than a

34 dozen households are serviced by private wells. The two counties have five primary surface

35 potable water sources: Lake Ontario, Hemlock Lake, Canadice Lakes, Third Creek Basin, and

36 Canadaigua Lake. In addition, Lyons Village purchases water from Junius Ponds in Seneca

37 County and draws additional water from two wells that are supplied by the Fairport/Lyons

38 Glacial Stream Channel (RG&E 2002a).

39
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The daily consumption and areas served by the major public water supply districts are listed in

2 Table 2-8. The primary public water service providers in Wayne County are the Ontario Water

3 District and the town of Williamson. The Ontario Water District plans to increase the size of its

4 intake pipes, which would result in a doubling of the intake capacity.

5

The MCWA has a capacity for 585,825 m3 6 /day (145 MGD) with a peak usage of

461,770 m3 7 /day (122 MGD). Presently, the MCWA has enough supply to handle an additional

8 9200 households. Rochester has its own water system with over 2800 ha (7000 ac) of land in

9 the watershed around Hemlock and Canadice Lakes. The city is permitted to draw, on

average, 140,045 m3/day (37 MGD), with a maximum daily usage of 181,680 m3 10 /day (48 MGD). 

11 If the city needs supplemental water, it purchases from the MCWA.

12

Table 2-8. Major(a) 13 Public Water Supply Systems in Monroe and Wayne Counties in

14 New York State

15

16 Water System County Source

Permitted

Capacity

m3/d (MGD)

Average Daily

Demand

m3/d(MGD)

Peak Demand

Per Day m3

/d

(MGD) Area Served

17 MCWA Monroe Surficial

Aquifer

5.5 x 105 (145) 2.3 x 105 (60) 4.6 x 105 (122) Monroe

County except

for City of

Rochester

18 City of Rochester Monroe Surficial

Aquifer

1.8 x 105 (48) 1.4 x 105 (37) 1.8 x 105

(46.5)

City of

Rochester

19 Ontario Water

20 District

Wayne Surficial

Aquifer

1.3 x 104 (3.5) 7.2 x 103 (1.9) 1.3 x 104 (3.5) Town of

Ontario

21 Town of

22 Williamson

Wayne Surficial

Aquifer

1.5 x 104 (4.0) 6.8 x 103 (1.8) 1.4 x 104 (3.7) Town of

Williamson

23 Newark Wayne Surficial

Aquifer

1.3 x 104 (3.5) 5.3 x 103 (1.4) 7.9 x 103 (2.1) Newark

(a) Only permitted plants with a treatment capacity greater than 3.785 x 103 m3 24 /day (1 MGD) are listed in the table.

25 Source: RG&E 2002a, 2002b

26

27 Transportation

28

29 There are 13 counties wholly or partially within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of Ginna. The

30 13-county area is served by a network of interstate freeways including Interstate 90 (I-90),

31 I-390, I-490, and I-81. In addition to interstate freeways, the region’s transportation network

32 includes an international airport and a train network. The Port of Rochester, at the mouth of the

33 Genesee River, is also available to a limited number of cargo ships and passenger ferries.
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-32 June 2003

1 I-90 runs east-west through the region connecting the urban area of Rochester with Buffalo and

2 Syracuse. I-390 enters Monroe County from the south and flows into a beltway system that

3 connects the Rochester suburbs, and I-81 runs through Syracuse along the east side of the

4 13 counties bordering Ginna. The main east-west transportation routes providing access to

5 Ginna are County Route 101 (Lake Road) and NYS Route 104. Lake Road, a two-lane road,

6 provides direct access to Ginna along much of the southern border of the site. NYS Route 104,

7 the predominant east-west corridor near the plant, runs parallel to Lake Road, approximately

8 5.8 km (3.6 mi) south of Ginna. Ontario Center Road in the town of Ontario runs north-south,

9 connecting NYS Route 104 to Lake Road immediately south of Ginna. Several other secondary

10 roads run north-south providing access to Lake Road from NYS Route 104. Employees

11 commuting from Monroe County and other points west of Ginna are likely to use NYS Routes

12 104, 441, or 286 to access Lake Road. Employees commuting from the south and east are

13 likely to use north-south corridors NYS Routes 21 and 350 to reach NYS Route 104, and then

14 use Ontario Center Road to Lake Road (RG&E 2002a).

15

16 State roads are rated with a “volume/capacity ratio,” which indicates whether the road is being

17 actively used over-capacity (value > 1.0), at-capacity (value = 1.0), or under-capacity (value

18 < 1.0) (RG&E 2002a). In addition, state roads carry “surface score ratings” ranging from a low

19 of “1” (impassable) to a high of “10” (new construction). The highest volume/capacity ratio

20 around Ginna is in Monroe County on a stretch of NYS Route 441 from Route 260 to the

21 Wayne County line. The volume/capacity ratio for this stretch of road ranges from 0.7 to 1.0,

22 which indicates the road is just under- or at-capacity. NYS Route 104 in Monroe County

23 between the Wayne County line and NYS Route 250 has a surface score rating of 5 (i.e., “high24 poor” condition), which is the lowest rating of the state roads surrounding Ginna. This is

25 primarily a reflection of the high volume on this stretch of road due to people working for Xerox

26 in Webster and for people commuting to Rochester. In addition, the surface ratings of NYS

27 Route 350 near Ginna and NYS Route 441 between Route 260 and the Wayne County line are

28 rated between 5 and 6; however, most of the state road surfaces in the area are rated around 7

29 (i.e., “good” condition) (RG&E 2002a).

30

31 The Greater Rochester International Airport is located in southwest Rochester just off of I-390,

32 approximately 32 km (20 mi) from Ginna. A primary passenger railway, operated by Amtrak,

33 runs east-west approximately 21.6 km (13.5 mi) south of Ginna. In addition, the Ontario

34 Midland Railroad, a local privately owned “shortline” that feeds into the CSX Transportation

35 lines, operates both passenger and freight service. The east-west portion of the “T” runs

36 approximately 5 km (3 mi) south of Ginna from Webster to Wolcott. The north-south portion of

37 the track runs from Sodus to Newark, 26 km (16 mi) east of Ginna. RG&E owns a corridor of

38 property from the railroad mainline track; however, no track has been built on this corridor

39 (RG&E 2002a).

40
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The Port of Rochester, located on Lake Ontario at the mouth of the Genesee River, was

2 decommissioned as a commercial port in 1980. It now is used by only two cruise ships in the

3 summer. In addition, a cement freighter passes by the Port, but docks farther south on the

4 Genesee River at a cement plant (RG&E 2002b). In recent years the City of Rochester has

5 invested millions of dollars into infrastructure improvements to the port as part of the City’s

6 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. The program involves redeveloping about 11 ha

7 (28 ac) of land and includes the construction of new streets, pedestrian amenities, a new

8 bridge, boat marinas, and infrastructure to support a high-speed ferry operation between

9 Rochester and Toronto, Canada (City of Rochester 2002).

10

11 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use

12

13 Wayne and Monroe Counties are located along Lake Ontario’s south shore. The Genesse

14 Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council produces an annual report that contains land-use

15 coverage data based on remote sensing satellite imagery. The results of the 1999 study are

16 found in Table 2-9 (GFLRPC 2001). The Council notes that eastern Monroe and western

17 Wayne Counties are among the fastest growing areas in the region. The following are

18 discussions of land use in each of these two counties.

19

20 Table 2-9. Land Use in Wayne and Monroe Counties in New York State

21

22 Wayne County Monroe County

23 Land Use

Square

Kilometers

Square

Miles

Percent of

Total

Square

Kilometers

Square

Miles

Percent of

Total

24 Water 29.5 11.4 2.0 20.9 8.1 1.0

25 Urban/Built Up 11.1 4.3 1.0 125.6 48.5 7.0

26 Forested Areas 821.7 317.4 52.0 517.8 200.0 30.0

27 Fields 722.1 278.9 45.0 1061.5 410.0 62.0

28 Total 1584.4 612.0 100.0 1725.8 666.6 100.0

29 Source: GFLRPC 2001

30

31 Wayne County

32

33 Wayne County is rich in agriculture, with approximately 840 farms present in 1997. Although

34 the acreage used in farming dropped from 77,423 ha (191,309 ac) to 67,662 ha (167,190 ac)

35 between 1987 and 1997, the county ranks forty-third nationwide in the number of acres

36 dedicated to orchards (255 farms). Other primary crops include corn (358 farms), hay and

37 other grains (342 farms), beef and milk cows (223 farms), oats, potatoes, and vegetables. The

38 land within 8-km (5-mi) radius of Ginna is used principally for growing apples, cherries, grapes,

39 and field crops (RG&E 2002a).
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-34 June 2003

1 Most of the Wayne County land that is farmland, pastures, grassland, and other areas of non2 forested vegetation would be included in the “Fields” category in Table 2-9. The amount of land

3 made up of low-density, large-lot residential developments has increased in recent years,

4 particularly along the west side of the county within a short commute distance from Rochester. 

5 There has been relatively little retail or commercial growth. This is also evident from the annual

6 land use census conducted by RG&E to determine land-use changes and identify the nearest

7 gardens and locations of milk animals used for commercial production within 8 km (5 mi) of the

8 station (RG&E 2002d). The NYS Route 104 corridor has been the primary conduit for this

9 growth. In Table 2-9, residential land would be part of the land use categories “Forested

10 Areas,” which are all areas with moderate to dense tree coverage, and “Urban/Built Up” land,

11 which includes developed areas as well as roads and parking lots (GFLRPC 2001). 

12

13 Wayne County is composed of 15 towns, each with an elected Town Supervisor. According to

14 Wayne County Department of Development, the Wayne County towns abutting Lake Ontario do

15 not have any restrictive ordinances placed on growth and development, and there is no reason

16 to suspect that there will be limitations placed on building in the vicinity of Ginna in the

17 foreseeable future (RG&E 2002a).

18

19 Monroe County

20

21 Monroe County is more developed and industrialized than Wayne County and is home to

22 Rochester, the third largest city in New York State. Monroe County comprises 19 towns,

23 10 villages, and the city of Rochester. The New York State Constitution grants all cities, towns,

24 and villages the right of “home-rule” power; therefore, county-level, land-use planning is very

25 limited. The county sees its role as very minimal in land-use planning and does not have any

26 restrictions to growth. Recently, however, Monroe County provided $2 million from a tobacco

27 settlement to leverage other local and state funding for the purpose of open space preservation. 

28 The suburban towns, however, must initiate the open space actions (RG&E 2002a).

29

30 The town of Webster in eastern Monroe County is the fastest growing municipality in the

31 county. It had 14 major projects out of 123 major projects proposed in Monroe County in 2001. 

32 The town issued 227 building permits, which accounted for 16 percent of all permits issued in

33 Monroe County that year. Townhouses and apartments comprised 57 percent of these permits

34 (RG&E 2002d). Lot sizes for single family residences are a minimum of about 0.2 ha (0.5 ac),

35 but the average size is 1.2 ha (3.0 ac) because of the lack of sewer systems. Recently, the

36 town of Webster defeated a ballot measure that would have provided funds to preserve

37 1214 ha (3000 ac) as open space, although there is an ongoing effort to identify and retain farm
Plant and the Environment

(a) Discussion with Gary Kleist, Commissioner of Public Works, Webster, New York (October 6, 2002).

June 2003 2-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 properties in agriculture using tax incentives with the purchase of development rights. The

2 MCWA is planning to expand capacity on the east side of the county with a new intake line into

Lake Ontario.(a) 3

4

5 The city of Rochester has declined in population over the last two decades, due to declining

6 household size and movement to the suburbs. No restrictions on growth are in place in

7 Rochester. The town of Webster, which is the town closest to Ginna in Monroe County, passed

8 a comprehensive plan to control building zones and development in 1998; however, there are

9 no growth control measures in place (RG&E 2002a).

10

11 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise

12

13 Ginna is located in Wayne County just off the south shore of Lake Ontario. The Ginna site

14 occupies an area of 197 ha (488 ac) and includes 0.6 km (1.5 mi) of shoreline. The topography

15 of the site is either flat or gently rolling. The land in the area increases in elevation to the south,

16 from about 78 m (255 ft) above mean sea level (msl) near the edge of the lake; to 134 m

17 (440 ft) at Ridge Road about 5.6 km (3.5 mi) south of the plant; to 488 m (1600 ft) at the

18 northern edge of the Appalachian Plateau, about 56 km (35 mi) to the south. Southward from

19 NYS Route 104, the terrain progressively roughens, with a series of small abrupt hills

20 commencing about 16 km (10 mi) south of the site (RG&E 2002a).

21

22 Surface-water features onsite include Mill Creek, which enters the site from the south, and Deer

23 Creek, which enters the site from the west. Both creeks join southwest of the plant and empty

24 into Lake Ontario just east of the plant. The general plant area is relatively well drained, with no

25 topographic basins or swampy areas onsite. Approximately half of the site is leased and

26 currently being used for agricultural production, primarily apple orchards and, to a lesser

27 degree, corn and hay fields. Another quarter of the site has been left relatively undisturbed,

28 having a combination of open fields, shrub brush, and trees. The remaining quarter of the site

29 has been developed for the power station and ancillary facilities, with about 104 ha (256 ac)

30 enclosed within the security fences (RG&E 2002a).

31

32 Approaching from the south on State Road 350, the Ginna site is not visible until approximately

33 1 km (0.6 mi) from the main entrance of the site. The view of the plant is fairly well blocked by

34 woods and vegetation from the southwest and southeast. However, the transmission lines from

35 the plant are visible from greater distances due to their elevation.

36

37 From Lake Ontario, the plant is visible from the north with limited visibility directly east and west. 

38 Many upscale homes have been built on Lake Ontario, but few are in sight of the plant. The
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-36 June 2003

1 lights from the plant, however, are noticeable to residents along the lake several miles from the

2 plant, particularly in the winter when the light is reflected off snow on the ground. Noise from

3 Ginna, at locations on the plant site, is barely noticeable except very close to the reactor

4 containment building.

5

6 The immediate area around the site is rural. There are no substantial population centers,

7 industrial complexes, airports, transportation arteries, or parks within a 4.8-km (3.0-mi) radius of

8 Ginna, and the only recreational facility within this radius is the Bear Creek boat ramp, about

9 2.4 km (1.5 mi) from the site. The largest municipality within 16 km (10 mi) of Ginna is

10 Webster, located in Monroe County, and approximately 11 km (7 mi) west-southwest of Ginna. 

11 Webster Park, a 223-ha (550-ac) Monroe County park on the south shore of Lake Ontario, is

12 approximately 10 km (6 mi) west of the site. The nearest wildlife refuge is the Montezuma

13 Wetlands Complex, located approximately 56 km (35 mi) from the Ginna site, in southeastern

14 Wayne County. This complex is composed of 15,000 ha (36,000 ac) of marshes, forested

15 wetlands, old fields, meadows, farm fields, and woodlands under Federal, State, and private

16 control (RG&E 2002a).

17

18 2.2.8.5 Demography

19

20 Resident Population Within 80 km (50 mi)

21

22 Population was estimated from the Ginna site out to 80 km (50 mi) in 16-km (10-mi) annular

23 rings. An estimated 581,745 people live within 32 km (20 mi) of Ginna, and 1.25 million people

24 live within 80 km (50 mi) (USCB 2000b). The largest population center within a portion of the

25 16-km (10-mi) area is Webster (town population 37,926 and village population of 5216)

26 (USCB 2000b). Between 1990 and 2000, the Wayne County population grew by about

27 5 percent (which was the same growth rate as New York State during these years). The

28 Monroe County population grew by about 3 percent.

29

30 Workforce

31

32 The economy in Wayne County is much more closely linked to Ginna activities than Monroe

33 County, as RG&E is one of the largest employers in Wayne County and pays more in property

34 tax than any other single tax paying entity. The largest employer in Wayne County is the

35 county government itself. In addition to the county and Ginna, most other larger employers are

36 moderately sized manufacturing plants, including Garlock (manufacturing gaskets, seals, and

37 rubber goods), Parker Hannifin Corporation (manufacturing refrigeration and air-conditioning

38 products), and IEC Electronics (assembling electronic parts for computers) (WCEDC 1996). 

39 The Ames department stores were also a major employer in the area until their closure in 2002. 

40 This closure is expected to have a negative impact on the economy of Wayne County, not only
Plant and the Environment

(a) Discussion with Jim Armstrong, Wayne County Economic Development Corporation 

(November 4, 2002).

June 2003 2-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 because of the loss of employment from its three stores, but also because it was one of the

2 primary sources of sales tax revenue in the county. Wayne County has relatively few sources

3 of sales tax revenue, as most of the larger retail centers are found in neighboring counties. The

4 Wayne County economy is also struggling with the recent downsizing of IEC Electronics which

went from 1300 employees in 1996 to approximately 200 in 2002.(a) 5

6

7 One factor that could potentially counter some of the negative impact from recent business

8 closures and downsizing in Wayne County is its recent designation as an “Empire Zone” by the

9 State of New York. The Empire Zone classification entitles the county to reduce certain State

10 taxes on businesses that choose to site themselves in the county. The State also provides, as

11 part of its Empire Zone program, a certain amount of funding to the county to attract new

businesses to the area.(a) 12

13

14 Table 2-10 presents information on the major employment sectors and number of employees

15 for Wayne and Monroe counties.

16

17 Table 2-10. Major Employment Sectors in Wayne and Monroe Counties in New York

18 State (2000)

19

20 Number of Employees

21 Employment Sector Wayne Monroe

22 Services 15,280 150,960

23 Retail trade 7,400 60,380

24 Manufacturing 7,400 81,140

25 Agriculture 1,780 11,320

26 Construction 1,020 13,440

27 Other 13,860 43,930

28 Unemployed 2,560 16,230

29 Total jobs – full- and part-time 49,300 377,400

30 Source: RG&E 2002a

31

32 Transient Populations

33

34 During the summer months, the lakeside population increases by about 500 people within a

35 8-km (5-mi) radius of the plant site and by about 4000 people within a 32-km (20-mi) radius. 
Plant and the Environment

(a) Cornell Migrant Program. Personal communications (e-mail) with Kay Embrey, Senior Extension

Associate, Department of Human Development, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University,

Alton, New York (October 30, 2002).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-38 June 2003

1 The nearest group of houses are summer cottages located 1.3 km (0.8 mi) west of the site. 

2 Other than the summertime residents of the area, there are no large groups of transients within

3 8 km (5 mi) of Ginna (RG&E 2002a).

4

5 Migrant Labor

6

7 Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural

8 crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers

9 may follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout the northeastern U.S. rural

10 areas. Others may be permanent residents near Ginna who travel from farm to farm harvesting

11 crops.

12

13 Migrant workers can be members of minority or low-income populations. Because they travel

14 and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, migrant

15 workers may be unavailable for counting by census takers. If uncounted, these workers would

16 be “underrepresented” in U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) minority and low-income population

17 counts (RG&E 2002a).

18

19 Wayne County does have a migrant labor population, with most of these workers arriving after

20 May and staying through October, primarily for the apple-picking season. Approximately

21 115 farm-worker camps of five or more persons are scattered throughout Wayne County, with

22 a total population of about 4400 workers. Information from Rural New York Farmworker

23 Opportunities shows that there are about 12 camps with about 130 migrant workers located in

24 the vicinity of the Ginna site (RG&E 2002a).

25

26 The majority of the migrant farm laborers in rural New York state come from Mexico and speak

27 Spanish. In addition, there are several hundred Haitian workers, and other workers come from

28 Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Honduras, and other countries in the Caribbean and Central

29 America. There are also some African-American migrant workers who come to New York state

from Florida.(a) 30

31

32 There are an estimated 1000 children of migrant workers, ranging in age from infants to 21,

33 who qualify for the migrant education program in Wayne County. Some workers and their

34 families are in the county for as long as 9 months, but the vast majority are present for a

35 relatively short time (usually from the end of August until October). Also, there are some
Plant and the Environment

(a) Cornell Migrant Program. Personal communications (e-mail) with Kay Embrey, Senior Extension

Associate, Department of Human Development, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University,

Alton, New York (October 30, 2002).

(b) Tax payments for Ginna as a percentage of the town budget would be significantly higher than

percentage of total revenue, as the total revenue includes fees collected for dedicated funds, such

as the water fund and debt service. In 2001, the town of Ontario’s budget for items supported by

taxes totaled $3.9 million dollars. The total amount paid by RG&E for Ginna to the town was

$700,000 or approximately 18 percent of the budget (Discussion with Richard Clark, Town of Ontario

Supervisor, November 6, 2002.)

June 2003 2-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 seasonal (as opposed to migratory) workers who live in Wayne County all year and work on the

farms doing many of the same seasonal tasks as the migrant workers.(a) 2

3

4 2.2.8.6 Taxes

5

6 Property taxes are used to fund schools, police and fire protection, road maintenance, and

7 other municipal services. Property taxes may be levied by counties, cities, towns, villages,

8 school districts, and special districts. Ginna is located in the town of Ontario, Wayne County,

9 and the Wayne Central School District. RG&E tax payments for Ginna to these jurisdictions are

10 detailed in Table 2-11. Tax payments for Ginna averaged 13.2 percent of the total revenue

11 collected and 37.2 percent of total property taxes for Ontario for the period from 1995 to 2001

(RG&E 2002a).(b) 12 Ginna accounted for a smaller proportion of the Wayne County total revenue,

13 an average of 2.0 percent of the total revenue and 6.4 percent of total property taxes for the

14 same period. Ginna accounted for an average of 12.4 percent of the total revenue for the

15 period 1995 through 1999 for the Wayne Central School District (RG&E 2002a).

16

17 Over time, tax payments from Ginna constitute a decreasing percentage of each taxing entity’s

18 revenues and budgets. RG&E expects this trend to continue into the future, and with respect to

19 the town of Ontario and Wayne Central School District, this trend is approaching a level that is

20 10 percent or less of the taxing jurisdiction’s total revenue. In an agreement with the three

21 taxing jurisdictions, the assessed value of the facility will be reduced by $13 million per year

22 through 2009. While this reduction does not directly translate to a percentage reduction in

23 taxes, it does suggest that these levels will continue to decline, as shown in Table 2-11.

24
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-40 June 2003

1 Table 2-11. Property Taxes Paid to the Town of Ontario, Wayne County, and Wayne

2 Central School District in New York State by RG&E for R.E. Ginna Nuclear

3 Power Plant

4

5 Year

Total Property

Tax Revenues ($)

Property Tax Paid

for Ginna Station

($)

Percent of Total

Property Taxes

Total

Revenue ($)

Percent of Total

Revenue 

6 WAYNE COUNTY

7 1995 25,637,215 1,977,607 7.7 79,315,166 2.5

8 1996 26,040,581 1,767,004 6.8 80,650,726 2.2

9 1997 26,012,141 1,661,234 6.4 82,669,765 2.0

10 1998 25,923,815 1,599,601 6.2 84,526,663 1.9

11 1999 25,504,000 1,597,823 6.3 85,934,651 1.9

12 2000 26,911,005 1,634,372 6.1 88,697,549 1.8

13 2001 27,198,909 1,489,193 5.5 92,486,009 1.6

14 TOWN OF ONTARIO

15 1995 1,489,983 720,503 48.5 4,868,418 14.8

16 1996 1,772,832 683,209 38.5 5,105,070 13.4

17 1997 1,984,839 731,959 36.9 5,413,726 13.5

18 1998 2,119,847 765,647 36.1 5,552,530 13.8

19 1999 2,174,857 764,523 35.2 5,923,504 12.9

20 2000 2,224,925 749,000 33.7 5,889,192 12.7

21 2001 2,225,607 704,898 31.7 6,182,603 11.4

22 WAYNE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

23 1995 NA 3,270,099 NA 23,865,546 13.7

24 1996 NA 3,172,118 NA 23,635,950 13.4

25 1997 NA 3,183,220 NA 24,964,558 12.8

26 1998 NA 3,165,620 NA 27,248,584 11.6

27 1999 NA 3,105,391 NA 28,927,432 10.7

28 2000 NA 3,170,478 NA NA NA

29 2001 NA 3,182,172 NA NA NA

30 Source: RG&E 2002a

31 NA = not applicable

32

33 There is relatively little tax revenue generation from sales tax in Wayne County due to the low

34 number of retail centers in the county. The tax revenue generated by property taxes makes up

35 a significant portion of the overall revenue generated by Wayne County and the town of
Plant and the Environment

(a) Discussion with Robert Diener, Director of Real Property Tax Service, Wayne County, New York

(November 4, 2002).

June 2003 2-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Ontario. Despite the fact that most property in the county is used for agricultural purposes,

2 most of the property tax revenue comes from the residential sector (nearly 70 percent). The tax

3 revenue generated by Ginna alone makes up about 6 percent of property tax revenues, while

4 all other commercial properties generate approximately 10 percent of the property revenues for

the county.(a) 5

6

7 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources

8

9 This section discusses the historic and archaeological background of the Ginna site and the

10 surrounding area.

11

12 2.2.9.1 Historic and Archaeological Background

13

14 There is evidence that Native American populations lived and foraged in what is now Wayne

15 County from at least 10,000 B.C. until they were displaced by Euro-American populations in the

16 late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Secor 1987). However, known archaeological

17 sites are sparse in the area immediately south of Lake Ontario. In most periods, this area

18 seems to have been used temporarily for hunting, gathering, and fishing. Larger, more

19 permanent settlements tended to be located farther south.

20

21 Paleoindian hunters appear to have been attracted to the tundra and spruce woodland

22 environment characteristic of the area by the presence of large game animals such as

23 mammoth and bison. They preferred to make their hunting camps on well-drained hills or rises. 

24 The fluted chipped stone projectile points that mark this period have been found near Savannah

25 in southeastern Wayne County (Secor 1987). By 8000 B.C., deciduous forests associated with

26 smaller game had spread into the area around Lake Ontario. Early and Middle Archaic (7000 to

27 4000 B.C.) populations adapted to these new resources by taking a wider variety of game and

28 by using a greater variety of smaller stone tools. By the end of the Middle Archaic (4000 B.C.),

29 the area was part of the Lake-Forest biome and the associated Lake-Forest culture area. At

30 this time, fishing and forest hunting and gathering provided the subsistence base for small,

31 mobile bands. This more efficient exploitation of the environment allowed Archaic groups to

32 remain in larger camps for longer periods of time (Funk 1978). By 3000 B.C., the area around

33 Lake Ontario was home to essentially modern fauna. Archaeological sites from the period yield

34 thick, parallel-sided projectile points and, by 3000 B.C., ground stone axes and adzes. During

35 the Late Archaic Meadowood Phase (4000 to 1500 B.C.), small habitation sites with circular

36 houses are found along sizable streams, suggesting the continuing dependence of small bands

37 on fishing (Tuck 1978a).
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-42 June 2003

1 The appearance of pottery at about 1000 B.C. marks the onset of the Early Woodland Period

2 (1000 B.C. to A.D. 100). Experiments with plant domestication, greater sedentism, and larger

3 settlements characterize this period. The typical Early Woodland settlement pattern is one of

4 larger base settlements and dispersed smaller camps associated with the seasonal exploitation

5 of specific resources. The evidence from Wayne County suggests small-scale hunting and

6 fishing camps. Larger settlements were located farther south and to the west along the

7 Genesee River (Versaggi 1999).

8

9 During the Middle Woodland Period (A.D. 100 to 1000), intensive hunting and fishing continued

10 in the Lake-Forest Zone, with an emphasis on fishing. Horticulture based on maize, beans, and

11 squash was introduced to the area by A.D. 1000 and was practiced along with foraging. The

12 earliest horticultural villages that have been discovered still retain good access to streams and

13 other water sources.

14

15 During the Late Woodland Period, the antecedents of the historical Iroquois tribes begin to

16 emerge out of the Middle Woodland traditions. The Owasco phases begin around 1000 and

17 the Iroquois phases begin around 1350. The Seneca appear to have developed in an area

18 stretching from the Genesee River Valley to Seneca Lake that reaches north to Lake Ontario

19 including Wayne County. Beginning with small, seasonally occupied campsites situated on

20 knolls and terraces along the Genesee River, the increased reliance on horticulture led to the

21 consolidation of settlement into larger, palisaded, hilltop hamlets after 1350 (Niemczycki 1984). 

22 These semi-sedentary villages included longhouse-like dwellings, thought to have provided

23 communal shelter for extended, probably matrilineal families (Tuck 1978b), and cemeteries. 

24 Archaeological investigations along the Genesee River suggest a post-1450 settlement pattern

25 composed of pairs of large agricultural villages located well south of the lake that changed

26 location about every 20 years, associated with a large number of smaller special-use camps

27 (Wray et al. 1991).

28

29 By 1550, five Iroquois nations, including the Seneca and their eastern neighbors the Cayuga,

30 had formed a league or confederacy. After European contact, the Iroquois became increasingly

31 dependent on European metal goods, which they obtained through trade for furs. After

32 depleting the supply of beaver in their own lands, the Iroquois sought to control the fur trade

33 passing through their lands. They actively resisted the activities of French fur traders along the

34 Great Lakes, expanded their control over neighboring Native American groups, and sent war

35 parties great distances to take captives and to maintain control of trade routes and trade

36 (Abrams 1976). In 1687, the French reacted by burning the main Seneca villages. The Seneca

37 sought refuge with the Cayuga and eventually established more dispersed communities closer

38 to the Cayuga, east of the Genesee Valley and west of Canandaigua Lake, well inland from

39 Lake Ontario (Niemczycki 1984).

40
Plant and the Environment

(a) Personal communication (e-mail) with Ray Todd, Ontario Historical and Landmark Preservation

Society, Ontario, New York (November 6, 2002).

June 2003 2-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The Iroquois’ enmity with the French caused them to ally with the British, whom they supported

2 in colonial conflicts. Initial agreements with British colonial governments recognized the claims

3 of six Iroquois nations to northwestern Pennsylvania and western New York. Constant warfare

4 with European powers and an influx of smallpox eventually diminished the Seneca population. 

5 During the American Revolution, the Iroquois were initially neutral, but eventually sided with the

6 British. The colonies sent troops into western New York to subdue the Iroquois League. The

7 Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784 acknowledged the American victory but reserved for the Iroquois

8 much of western New York. About a third of the reserve, including the Wayne County area,

9 was acquired by land speculators Oliver Phelps and Nathaniel Gorham in 1787, thus opening

10 up the area to Euro-American settlement. By 1797, the Seneca had lost control of all but

11 11 relatively small parcels of their land. By 1802, when their lands had been further reduced,

12 the Seneca had become increasingly Americanized. Longhouses no longer marked their

13 settlements, and individuals began to own land. The number of Seneca in western New York

14 further declined as a result of the Indian Removal Act of 1820, but a core population remained. 

15 Today, they own four reservations in New York state (Abrams 1976).

16

17 Euro-American settlement increased dramatically after the Revolutionary War. At the

18 conclusion of the war, both Massachusetts and New York held territorial claims to western

19 New York state. In a compromise settlement, Massachusetts relinquished claims to

20 sovereignty over territory in exchange for the authority to sell the right to acquire land from the

21 Iroquois. Phelps and Gorham purchased these rights for a large section of western New York. 

22 They had the land surveyed and divided into tracts for sale, and then sold their rights to this

23 area to the Pultney of London Company in 1801 (Scully-Hill 1993). The first Euro-American

24 settlers arrived in the Wayne County area in 1789. Finding the area thickly forested, they first

25 settled along the lakeshore. Lake Ontario served as their main transportation route until the

26 Erie Canal was built in 1823. The town of Ontario was formed in 1807, and Wayne County was

27 formed in 1823.

28

29 Lakeshore property, such as that now occupied by Ginna, was the first to be settled and

30 cleared. Although the area was eventually farmed, small-scale industry arose along the lake

31 during the clearing process. Noah Fuller discovered a salt spring on Smoky Point, and salt

32 production began there in 1810 (McIntosh 1975). With plenty of wood for fuel, brick kilns are

33 said to have been located in the same vicinity, where bricks were produced for the Brick Church

located on Ontario Center Road about a mile south of Ginna.(a) 34 Hematite deposits that crop out

35 south of the Ginna site between Lake Road and Ridge Road were first recognized in 1811. 

36 Surface mining and iron production were underway in the area by 1820. The first blast furnace

37 was built in 1835. The large Furnaceville Iron Company furnace went into production in 1880. 
Plant and the Environment

(a) Personal communication (e-mail) with C. Howk, Landmark Society of Western New York, Rochester,

New York (January 9, 2003).

(b) Personal communication (e-mail) with Nancy Todd, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and

Historic Preservation, Waterford, New York (December 27, 2002).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-44 June 2003

1 This new large furnace triggered a mining boom. Ontario became a mining town and remained

2 so until the end of World War I. The pits left from the mining activity filled with water and

3 served as reservoirs until 1953. Hematite continued to be mined as pigment for a local paint

4 mill until 1948 (Scully-Hill 1993). The transmission line right-of-way from Ginna appears to pass

5 through the mining area before reaching Substation 204. After the decline of mining and iron

6 production, Ontario returned to its rural character, which it retains today.

7

8 In the early part of the 20th century, during the Country Place Era of American architecture, the

9 stretch of shoreline now occupied by Ginna attracted Rochester residents seeking a summer

10 retreat. Beginning as early as 1907, at least 11 summer cottages, known as the Gates Grove

11 Cottages, were built along the lakeshore on the western end of the Ginna property. The area is

12 currently wooded, and three cottages remain. In 1913, Laura Ellwanger, daughter-in-law of

13 prominent Rochester businessman and horticulturalist George Herman Ellwanger, purchased

14 approximately 31 ha (77 ac), on which she built a summer residence called Brookwood. The

15 estate included a Tudor Revival “manor house,” a carriage house, pool, extensive gardens, and

other out-buildings.(a) 16

17

18 The Brookwood Estate, the neighboring Bailey Farm, and adjacent parcels were acquired by

19 RG&E for the site of a nuclear power plant in 1958 (Hammer 1967). Ground was broken for

20 Ginna (initially called Brookwood) in 1966. The plant was substantially completed in 1969 and

21 became operational in 1970. Most of the structures constructed for the plant are located on the

22 former Bailey Farm.

23

24 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at Ginna Site

25

26 Ginna is currently located on a 197-ha (488-ac) parcel of land on the shores of Lake Ontario. 

27 Roughly a quarter of the land has been developed for the power plant itself and ancillary

28 structures. About half the land is leased for agricultural use, and the remaining quarter has

29 been left relatively undisturbed and consists of open fields, shrub-brush, and trees. Two

30 streams, Deer Creek and Mill Creek, drain the area and empty into the lake just east of the

31 plant. These resources are likely to have made this part of Wayne County attractive for human

32 use in both prehistoric and historic times. While no archaeological sites have been recorded at

33 Ginna, archaeological sites have been found along both creeks in relative proximity to the site. 

34 The New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) states that the Ginna property is

located in an archaeologically sensitive area.(b) 35
Plant and the Environment

(a) Personal communication (letter) with Wayne Boyko, Rochester Museum and Science Center,

Rochester, New York (January 13, 2003).

June 2003 2-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Iroquoian Native American tribes were contacted by letter to determine the area’s traditional

2 cultural importance (see Appendix C). Of these, the Seneca Nation of New York responded. 

3 The Seneca consider the location and area of the Ginna site to be part of their traditional range

4 and to be culturally highly sensitive (Mitchell and Maybee 2002).

5

6 During 1958, RG&E acquired 137 ha (388 ac) for the construction of Ginna. During planning

7 and construction of the plant, care was taken to preserve the rural character of the area. The

8 Brookwood Manor House, four original farm houses with barns located along Lake Road, and

9 the Gates Grove Cottages were preserved. The SHPO considers the Brookwood Estate to

10 embody the distinctive characteristics of the Country Place Era and to be eligible for inclusion in

11 the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The four farms on Lake Road all appear on

12 the 1858 plat of the area and were initially occupied by pioneer Ontario families. The Bailey

13 Farm belonged to the Hodges family, which first arrived in Ontario in 1811, while the remaining

14 farms came to be owned by the Gates family, who came to Ontario as early as 1816. The

15 existing farm houses range in date from 1866 to 1920 (Kemmet 2002). In the opinion of the

16 SHPO, the farms are not eligible for listing on the NRHP. The Gates Grove Cottages are not

17 owned by RG&E, although it does own the property. These cottages are likewise not

considered eligible for listing on the NRHP.(a) 18

19

20 There are two historic properties in the town of Ontario currently listed on the NRHP. Brick

21 Church Corners, also known as Ontario Heritage Square, is a historic district located at the

22 intersection of Brick Church and Ontario Center Roads about a mile south of Ginna, and just

23 east of the transmission line right-of-way. This 121-ha (300-ac) district includes eight early- to

24 mid-19th-century structures. The second is the First Presbyterian Church of Ontario Center

25 located 4.8 km (3 mi) south of Ginna at 1638 Ridge Road in Ontario Center. It is noted for its

26 period (1900 to 1924) Tudor Revival architecture. Three other historic sites, located between

27 1.6 to 3.2 km (1 to 2 mi) from Ginna, may be eligible for listing on the NRHP: the Albright

28 School (SHPO A117-08-002), Bear Creek Harbor (SHPO A117-08-0026), and Furnaceville

(SHPO A117-08-0028).(a) 29 These sites are all associated with the development of the

30 community of Ontario.

31

32 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations

33

34 The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the

35 operation of Ginna during the license renewal term. Any such activities could result in

36 cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for the Federal agency to become a

37 cooperating agency for preparation of the SEIS.
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-46 June 2003

1 There are two major Federal projects planned for the region. In November 2001, the 

2 U.S. Congress approved funding for the Port of Rochester Harbor and Ferry Terminal Project,

3 locally known as the “fast ferry.” The Port of Rochester is located approximately 24 km (15 mi)

4 west of the Ginna site. According to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, who secured the

5 funding in the U.S. House of Representatives, the monies will be spent for harbor and port

6 construction and to pay for a portion of the terminal services for the ferry service and cruise and

7 excursion services. Congress also approved spending money on the planned Center of

8 Excellence in Photonics and Optoelectronics to be located in Rochester. The Center will

9 combine Federal, State, and private monies and will focus on developing technology transfer

10 and pilot fabrication facilities for imaging and communications devices that can be shared

11 between Center partners (including Kodak, Xerox, Corning, the University of Rochester, and the

12 Rochester Institute of Technology). There is also a Federally owned wildlife preserve discussed

13 in Section 2.2.5.

14

15 After reviewing the Federal activities in the vicinity of the Ginna plant, the staff determined that

16 there were no Federal project activities that would make it desirable for another Federal agency

17 to become a cooperating agency for preparation of the SEIS.

18

19 NRC is required under Section 102 of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to consult with

20 and obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise

21 with respect to any environmental impact involved. NRC consulted with the FWS. Consultation

22 correspondence is included in Appendix E.

23

24 2.3 References

25

26 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

27 Protection Against Radiation.”

28

29 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing

30 of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

31

32 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

33 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

34

35 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

36 Standard Design Certifications and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

37

38 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

39 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

40
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, “Licensing

2 Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.”

3

4 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and

5 Transportation of Radioactive Material.”

6

7 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

8 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.”

9

10 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

11 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

12

13 Abrams, G. H. J. 1976. The Seneca People. Indian Tribal Series: Phoenix, Arizona.

14

15 American Nuclear Society (ANS). 1992. Controlled Nuclear Chain Reaction: The First

16 50 Years. American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois.

17

18 City of Rochester. 2002. “Port of Rochester Request for Qualifications.” City of Rochester

19 Economic Development Department. Accessed at

20 http://www.cityofrochester.gov/edd/portrfq/pdf on January 6, 2003.

21

22 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

23 [FWPCA] of 1977)

24

25 Cope, J. B. 1999. “Indiana Bat.” In Wilson, D. E. and S. Ruff, ed. The Smithsonian Book of

26 North American Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

27

28 Dames and Moore. 1971. Terrestrial Biological Survey, Nuclear Power Plant Site and

29 Environs, Ginna Nuclear Power Station. Ontario, New York.

30

31 Elliott, D. L., C. G. Holladay, W. R. Barchet, H. P. Foote, and W. F. Sandusky. 1986. Wind

32 Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. COE/CH 10093-4, U.S. Department of Energy,

33 Washington, D.C.

34

35 Endangered Species Act. 16 USC 1531, et seq.

36

37 Funk, R. F. 1978. "Post-Pleistocene Adaptations." Handbook of North American Indians,

38 Vol. 15, Northeast. Smithsonian Institution, edited by B. G. Trigger, Washington, D.C.

39
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-48 June 2003

1 Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council (GFLRPC). 1997. “1997 County and

2 Subcounty population Projections.” Accessed at http://www.gflrpc.org/DTRCenter/1997.html on

3 January 7, 2003.

4

5 Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council (GFLRPC). 2001. Genesee Finger Lakes

6 Regional Planning Council 2001 Annual Report. Rochester, New York.

7

8 Hammer, S. 1967. The RG&E Story, Vol. 2, The Ginna Years. Christopher Press, Rochester,

9 New York.

10

11 Hoyle, J. A., and T. Schaner. 2002. Lake Ontario Offshore Benthic Fish Community. In Lake

12 Ontario Management Unit 2001 Annual Report. Lake Ontario Committee Meeting, Great Lakes

13 Fishery Commission. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Canada. Available at:

14 http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/mgmt_unit/index.html.

15

16 Humphrey, S. R. 1982. “Bats.” Wild Mammals of North America, Biology, Management, and

17 Economics, J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds., Johns Hopkins University Press,

18 Baltimore, Maryland.

19

20 Kemmet, K. 2002. "Real Estate–NRC Re-Licensing." Memorandum from Ken Kemmet

21 (Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Rochester, New York) to G. Wrobel (Rochester Gas

22 and Electric Corporation, Ontario, New York), November 15, 2002.

23

24 Kraft, C., and C. Carothers. 2002. The Lake Ontario Salmon Fishery. Cornell Cooperative

25 Extension and NY Sea Grant, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University. Itheca,

26 New York. Available at: http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/ext/fish/salmon.html

27

28 McIntosh, W. H. 1975. History of Wayne County, New York. Dendron Press, Pultneyville,

29 New York.

30

31 Mitchell, K. and L. Maybee. 2002. "Comments on 67 FR 63171–R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

32 Plant." E-mail from K. Mitchell and L. Maybee (Seneca Nation of New York, Irving, New York)

33 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.), December 11, 2002.

34

35 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq.

36

37 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1998. Indiana Bat

38 Fact Sheet. Accessed at

39 http://www.dec.stagte.ny.us/weebsite/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/inbafs.html on January 7, 2003.

40
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2001. Letter from

2 NYSDEC to M.E. Dangler (RG&E) regarding hazardous waste compliance inspection. Avon,

3 New York.

4

5 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2002. New York Rare

6 Plant Status List, May 2002. Ed. by S. M. Young, New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany,

7 New York.

8

9 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003a. List of

10 Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Fish and Wildlife Species of New York State. 

11 New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine

12 Resources. Accessed at

13 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/etsclist.html on January 22, 2003.

14

15 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003b. New York

16 State Breeding Bird Atlas Project 2000. Accessed at http://www.dec.sgtate.ny.us/apps/bba/

17 index.html on January 7, 2003.

18

19 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003c. New York

20 State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas Project 1990–1999. Accessed at

21 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/herp/ on January 7, 2003.

22

23 Niemczycki, M. A. P. 1984. The Origin and Development of the Seneca and Cayuga Tribes of

24 New York State. Research Record No. 17, Research Division, Rochester Museum and Science

25 Center, Rochester, New York.

26

27 Omernik, J. M. 1987. “Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Map

28 (Scale 1:7500000).” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1): 118-125.

29

30 Ramsdell, J. V. and G. L. Andrews. 1986. Tornado Climatology in the Contiguous United

31 States. NUREG/CR-4461, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

32

33 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). 42 USC 6901 et seq.

34

35 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1972. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

36 Unit No. 1, Environmental Report, Vol. 1. Docket No. 50-244. Rochester, New York.

37

38 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1977. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 316(a)

39 Demonstration Supplement. NPDES Permit No. 070 02 2 000079 (NY 0000493), RG&E Report

40 No. BP-13-043, Rochester, New York.
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-50 June 2003

1 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1995. Electric Transmission Right-Of-Way

2 Management Plan. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Rochester, New York.

3

4 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2001a. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant,

5 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Rev 16. April 2001. Rochester, New York.

6

7 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2001b. Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

8 Report, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244. Rochester, New York.

9

10 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2001c. The 2001 Hazardous Waste

11 Regulatory Fee Information (form) to New York State Department of Environmental

12 Conservation, Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials. Rochester, New York.

13

14 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2001d. Annual Radiological Environmental

15 Operating Report, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant. Docket No. 50-244. Rochester, New York.

16

17 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002a. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

18 Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E – Environmental Report. Rochester,

19 New York.

20

21 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002b. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant:

22 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. Revision 17. Rochester, New York.

23

24 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002c. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

25 Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix A – Updated Final Safety Analysis 

26 Report Supplement. Rochester, New York.

27

28 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002d. Letter dated December 23, 2002,

29 from R. C. McCready (RG&E) to R. Schaaf (NRC) submitting additional information following

30 the site visit to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. Rochester, New York. (Accession

31 No. ML030140009).

32

33 Schaner, T., J. N. Bowlby, M. E. Daniels, and B. F. Lantry. 2002. Lake Ontario Offshore

34 Pelagic Fish Community. In Lake Ontario Management Unit 2001 Annual Report. Lake Ontario

35 Committee Meeting, Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto,

36 Canada. Available at http://www.glfc.org.lakecom/loc/mgmt_unit/index.html.

37

38 Scully-Hill, Virginia. 1993. Ontario's History 1807-1993 as Preserved at Heritage Square,

39 Ontario, New York. Empire State Weeklies, Ontario, New York.

40
Plant and the Environment

June 2003 2-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Secor, H. 1987. Pre-history of the Savannah, New York Area 9000 B.C. to 1700 A.D. Wayne

2 County Historical Society, Lyons, New York.

3

4 Tuck, J. A. 1978a. "Regional Cultural Development: 3000–300 B.C." Handbook of North

5 American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast. Smithsonian Institution, edited by B. G. Trigger,

6 Washington, D.C.

7

8 Tuck, J. A. 1978b. "Northern Iroquoian Prehistory." Handbook of North American Indians,

9 Vol. 15, Northeast. Smithsonian Institution, edited by B. G. Trigger, Washington, D.C.

10

11 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

12 Operation of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1. Rochester Gas and Electric

13 Corporation. Docket No. 50-244. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC.

14

15 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1990. U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and

16 Housing, Summary Tape file 1. Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov on January 6, 2003.

17

18 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1995. New York Population of Counties by Decennial Census:

19 1900 to 1990. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ny190090.txt on

20 January 6, 2003.

21

22 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 2000, Table DP-1. 

23 Profile of General Demographic characteristics. Accessed at

24 http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/ny.html on April 9, 2003.

25

26 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF-1) 100 Percent

27 Data.” Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet on

28 April 9, 2003.

29

30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003a. Green Book, Nonattainment Areas for

31 Criteria Pollutants. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ on January 9, 2003.

32

33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003b. Number of Days with AQI Values

34 Greater Than 100 at Trend Sites, 1991–2000, and All Sites in 2000. Accessed at 

35 http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd00/pdffiles/aqiall.pdf on January 15, 2003.

36

37 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1989. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

38 Determination of Threatened Status for Eastern and Western Prairie Fringed Orchids.” Federal

39 Register, Vol. 54, 39857 - 39863, September 28, 1989.

40
Plant and the Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 2-52 June 2003

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

2 Final Rule to Reclassify the Plant Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) from

3 Endangered to Threatened.” Federal Register Vol. 59, 50852 - 50857, October 6, 1994.

4

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2000. Guidelines for Bog Turtle Surveys. Pennsylvania

6 Field Office, State College, Pennsylvania. August 30, 2000 Revision.

7

8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

9 Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the Great Lakes Breeding Population of the Piping

10 Plover.” Federal Register Vol. 66, 22938-22969, May 7, 2001.

11

12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Letter from D. A. Stilwell (FWS) to P. M. Sawyko

13 (RG&E). 25 February 2002.

14

15 U.S. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA). 2002. Climatology of the

16 United States No. 81, Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and

17 Cooling Degree Days, 1971–2000, 30 New York (revision date February 2002). National

18 Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina.

19

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

21 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

22

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

24 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

25 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

26 Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

27

28 Versaggi, N. M. 1999. "Regional Diversity within the Early Woodland of the Northeast." 

29 Northeast Anthropology, 57: 45-56.

30

31 Wayne County Economic Development Corporation (WCEDC). 1996. Wayne County Strategic

32 Economic Development Plan. Prepared by Nutter Associates, Lyons, New York.

33

34 Wray, C. F., M. L. Sempowski, and L. P. Saunders. 1991. Tram and Cameron: Two Early

35 Contact Era Seneca Sites. Research Record No. 21, Research Division, Rochester Museum

36 and Science Center, Rochester, New York.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

June 2003 3-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

2

3

4 Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities are discussed in the Generic

5 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 6 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

7 analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional

8 mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a

9 Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of

10 the following criteria:

1112

13 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

14 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system

15 or other specified plant or site characteristic.

16

17 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to

18 the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

19 high level waste and spent fuel disposal).

20

21 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

22 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures

23 are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

24

25 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

26 required in this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) unless new and

27 significant information is identified.

28

29 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1 and,

30 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

31

32 License renewal actions may require refurbishment activities for the extended plant life. These

33 actions may have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type

34 of action and the plant-specific design. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment

35 that were determined to be Category 1 issues are listed in Table 3-1.

36

37 Environmental issues related to refurbishment considered in the GEIS for which these

38 conclusions could not be reached for all plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2

39 issues. These are listed in Table 3-2.
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 3-2 June 2003

1 Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

2

3 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

4 SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

5 Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water quality 3.4.1

6 Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water use 3.4.1

7 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

8 Refurbishment 3.5

9 GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

10 Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality 3.4.2

11 LAND USE

12 Onsite land use 3.2

13 HUMAN HEALTH

14 Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1

15 Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2

16 SOCIOECONOMICS

17 Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 3.7.4; 3.7.4.3;

3.7.4.4; 3.7.4.6

18 Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 3.7.8

19

20 Category 1 and Category 2 issues not applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

21 (Ginna) are listed in Appendix F.

22

23 The potential environmental effects of refurbishment actions would be identified, and the

24 analysis would be summarized within this section, if such actions were planned. The Rochester

25 Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) indicated that it has performed an evaluation of

26 structures and components pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 to identify activities that are necessary to

27 continue operation of Ginna during the requested 20-year period of extended operation. These

28 activities include replacement of certain components as well as new inspection activities and

29 are described in the Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002).

30

31 However, RG&E stated in their ER that the replacement of these components and the

32 additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement

33 and inspections; therefore, they are not expected to affect the environment outside the bounds

34 of plant operations for Ginna as evaluated in the final environmental statement (AEC 1973). In 
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

June 2003 3-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

2

3 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B4 1 GEIS Section

10 CFR 51.53

(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

5 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

6 Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E

7 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

8 Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E

9 AIR QUALITY

10 Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and

11 maintenance areas)

3.3 F

12 SOCIOECONOMICS

13 Housing impacts 3.7.2 I

14 Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 I

15 Public services: education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1 I

16 Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5 I

17 Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J

18 Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K

19 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

20 Environmental justice Not

addressed(a)

Not 

addressed(a)

21 (a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated revision

22 to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. If an applicant plans to undertake refurbishment activities for license

23 renewal, environmental justice must be addressed in the applicant’s environmental report and the staff’s

24 environmental impact statement.

25

26 addition, RG&E’s evaluation of structures and components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 did not

27 identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the

28 continued operation of Ginna beyond the end of the existing operating licenses. Therefore,

29 refurbishment is not considered in this draft SEIS.

30
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 3-4 June 2003

1 3.1 References

2

3 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

4 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

5

6 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

7 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

8

9 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

10 Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E – Environmental Report. Rochester,

11 New York.

12

13 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to

14 Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation. 

15 Dockets No. 50-244, Washington, D.C.

16

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

18 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

19

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

21 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

22 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

23 Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

June 2003 4-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation

2

3

4 Environmental issues associated with operation of a nuclear power plant during the renewal

5 term are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 6 The GEIS

7 includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be applied

8 to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then

9 assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1

10 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

11

12 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

13 to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

14 specified plant or site characteristic.

15

16 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE) has been assigned to

17 the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

18 high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

19

20 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

21 and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

22 to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

23

24 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

25 required unless new and significant information is identified.

26

27 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

28 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

29

30 This chapter of the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) addresses the

31 issues related to operation during the renewal term that are listed in Table B-1 of 10 CFR

32 Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, and are applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

33 (Ginna). Section 4.1 addresses issues applicable to the Ginna cooling system. Section 4.2

34 addresses issues related to transmission lines and onsite land use. Section 4.3 addresses the

35 radiological impacts of normal operation, and Section 4.4 addresses issues related to the

36 socioeconomic impacts of normal operation during the renewal term. Section 4.5 addresses

37 issues related to groundwater use and quality, while Section 4.6 discusses the impacts of

38 renewal-term operations on threatened or endangered species. Section 4.7 addresses

39 potential new information that was raised during the scoping period. The results of the
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-2 June 2003

1 evaluation of environmental issues related to operation during the renewal term are

2 summarized in Section 4.8. Finally, Section 4.9 lists the references cited in the chapter. 

3 Category 1 and Category 2 issues that are not applicable because they are related to plant

4 design features or site characteristics not found at Ginna are listed in Appendix F.

5

6 4.1 Cooling System

7

8 Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable

9 to the operation of the Ginna cooling system during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-1. 

10 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) stated in its Environmental Report (ER)

11 (RG&E 2002a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the

12 renewal of the Ginna operating license (OL). The staff has not identified any new and

13 significant information related to operation of the cooling system during its independent review

14 of the Ginna ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, or

15 its evaluation of other information including the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

16 (SPDES) permit for Ginna issued by the New York State Department of Environmental

17 Conservation (NYSDEC) (Permit No. NY0000493). Therefore, the staff concludes that there

18 are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these

19 issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific

20 mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

21

22 A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

23 each of these issues follows.

24

25 Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures. Based on information in the GEIS,

26 the Commission found that

27

28 Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating

29 nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license

30 renewal term.

31

32 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff concludes

33 that there are no impacts of altered current patterns during the renewal term beyond those

34 discussed in the GEIS.

35

36
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

2 Plant Cooling System During the Renewal Term

3

4 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

5 SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

6 Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2

7 Altered thermal stratification of lakes 4.2.1.2.2; 4.4.2.2

8 Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

9 Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

10 Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

11 Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2

12 Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2

13 Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2.2

14 Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) 4.2.1.3

15 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

16 Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.3; 4.4.3; 4.4.2.2

17 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

18 Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

19 Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

20 Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

21 Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7; 4.4.3

22 Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8; 4.4.3

23 Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 4.2.2.1.9; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

24 Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms

25 exposed to sublethal stresses

4.2.2.1.10; 4.4.3

26 Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.11; 4.4.3

27 HUMAN HEALTH

28 Noise 4.3.7

29

30

31  Altered thermal stratification of lakes. Based on information in the GEIS, the

32 Commission found that

33

34 Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating

35 nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license

36 renewal term.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-4 June 2003

1 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

2 concludes that there are no impacts of lake stratification during the renewal term beyond

3 those discussed in the GEIS.

4

5  Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity. Based on information in the GEIS,

6 the Commission found that

7

8 These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

9 plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

10

11 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

12 concludes that there are no impacts of temperature on sediment transport during the

13 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

14

15  Scouring caused by discharged cooling water. Based on information in the GEIS, the

16 Commission found that

17

18 Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power

19 plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to

20 be a problem during the license renewal term.

21

22 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

23 concludes that there are no impacts of scouring during the renewal term beyond those

24 discussed in the GEIS.

25

26  Eutrophication. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

27

28 Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

29 plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

30

31 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

32 concludes that there are no impacts of eutrophication during the renewal term beyond those

33 discussed in the GEIS.

34

35  Discharge of chlorine or other biocides. Based on information in the GEIS, the

36 Commission found that

37

38 Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not

39 expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

40
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

2 concludes that there are no impacts of discharge of chlorine or other biocides during the

3 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

4

5  Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills. Based on information in the

6 GEIS, the Commission found that

7

8 Effects are readily controlled through NPDES permit and periodic modifications,

9 if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

10

11 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

12 concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of sanitary wastes and minor chemical

13 spills during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

14

15  Discharge of other metals in wastewater. Based on information in the GEIS, the

16 Commission found that

17

18 These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

19 power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been

20 satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem

21 during the license renewal term.

22

23 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

24 concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of other metals in wastewater during the

25 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

26

27  Water-use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems). Based on information

28 in the GEIS, the Commission found that

29

30 These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

31 plants with once-through heat dissipation systems.

32

33 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

34 concludes that there are no impacts of water-use conflicts during the renewal term beyond

35 those discussed in the GEIS.

36

37  Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota. Based on information in the GEIS,

38 the Commission found that

39
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-6 June 2003

1 Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants

2 but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes

3 with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license

4 renewal term.

5

6 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

7 concludes that there are no impacts of accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota

8 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

9

10  Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Based on information in the GEIS, the

11 Commission found that

12

13 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a

14 problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem

15 during the license renewal term.

16

17 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

18 concludes that there are no impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton

19 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

20

21  Cold shock. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

22

23 Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with

24 once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been

25 found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

26 cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

27 term.

28

29 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

30 concludes that there are no impacts of cold shock during the renewal term beyond those

31 discussed in the GEIS.

32

33  Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish. Based on information in the GEIS, the

34 Commission found that

35

36 Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

37 power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

38 term.

39
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

2 concludes that there are no impacts of thermal plumes during the renewal term beyond

3 those discussed in the GEIS.

4

5  Distribution of aquatic organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

6 found that

7

8 Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to effect the

9 larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms.

10

11 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

12 concludes that there are no impacts of distribution of aquatic organisms during the renewal

13 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

14

15  Premature emergence of aquatic insects. Based on information in the GEIS, the

16 Commission found that

17

18 Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating

19 nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a

20 problem during the license renewal term.

21

22 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

23 concludes that there are no impacts of premature emergence of aquatic insects during the

24 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

25

26  Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease). Based on information in the GEIS, the

27 Commission found that

28

29 Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear

30 power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily

31 mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

32 plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

33 during the license renewal term.

34

35 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

36 concludes that there are no impacts of gas supersaturation during the renewal term beyond

37 those discussed in the GEIS.

38
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-8 June 2003

1  Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge. Based on information in the GEIS, the

2 Commission found that

3

4 Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a

5 once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been

6 found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

7 cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

8 term.

9

10 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

11 concludes that there are no impacts of low dissolved oxygen in the discharge during the

12 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

13

14  Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal

15 stresses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

16

17 These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

18 power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

19 term.

20

21 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

22 concludes that there are no impacts of losses from predation, parasitism, and disease

23 among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses during the renewal term beyond those

24 discussed in the GEIS.

25

26  Stimulation of nuisance organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

27 found that

28

29 Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single

30 nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was

31 a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

32 plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

33 during the license renewal term.

34

35 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

36 concludes that there are no impacts of stimulation of nuisance organisms during the

37 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

38

39  Noise. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

40

41 Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not

42 expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

2 concludes that there are no impacts of noise during the renewal term beyond those

3 discussed in the GEIS.

4

5 The Category 2 issues related to cooling system operation during the renewal term that are

6 applicable to Ginna are listed in Table 4-2 and are discussed in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3.

7

8 Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

9 Plant Cooling System During the Renewal Term

10

11 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

12 Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

13 AQUATIC ECOLOGY

14 (FOR PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH HEAT-DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

15 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.2.2.1.2; 4.3.3 B 4.1.1

16 Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.2.2.1.3; 4.3.3 B 4.1.2

17 Heat shock 4.2.2.1.4; 4.3.3 B 4.1.3

18

19 4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages

20

21 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages at Ginna has been investigated as part of

22 the NYSDEC SPDES Permit (RG&E 2002a) and compared to studies conducted in a similar

23 region of Lake Ontario. Review of impacts due to entrainment continues to be conducted by

24 NYSDEC.

25

26 Entrainment sampling of Ginna intake waters for ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) took

27 place between 1976 and 1981. Over the 6-year sampling program, an estimated annual

28 average of 89 million fish eggs (range of 14 to 168 million eggs) and 17 million fish larvae 

29 (range of 7 to 37 million larvae) were entrained. The principal larval species were alewives

30 (Alosa pseudoharengus), smelt (Osmerus mordax), and darters (Etheostoma spp.), with

31 alewives the predominant species (RG&E 2002a).

32

33 During 1977 and 1978, RG&E conducted additional studies of the ichthyoplankton community in

34 Lake Ontario in the vicinity of Ginna. The fish species found in the lake studies were similar to

35 the entrainment studies conducted at the same time. Alewives were the dominant species in

36 both studies, followed by smelt and johnny darters (E. nigrum) (RG&E 2002a).

37
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-10 June 2003

1 Cornell University conducted ichthyoplankton studies of Lake Ontario during 1997 and 1998

2 (Klumb et al. 2003). The results of these studies showed a similar community structure to that

3 found by RG&E during 1977 and 1978. In addition, the studies showed that the community

4 structure along the entire southern shoreline of Lake Ontario was similar to that identified by

5 RG&E in its study. RG&E concluded that entrainment impacts due to the plant’s operations

6 during the license renewal period will not be substantially different from those previously

7 evaluated (RG&E 2002a).

8

9 Information from these studies has been incorporated into the SPDES permit, and NYSDEC

10 has regularly reviewed and approved the results. NYSDEC has determined that further

11 mitigative efforts are not warranted at this time (RG&E 2002a). Further evaluation of

12 entrainment of the ichthyoplankton community by Ginna is required as part of the NYSDEC

13 SPDES permit program. SPDES permits are renewed every 5 years. The most recent SPDES

14 permit, (Appendix E), which expires in February 2008, requires that RG&E conduct an

15 entrainment study of the aquatic organisms in the station’s cooling-water flow in 2003

16 (NYSDEC 2003a).

17

18 The studies by RG&E and others confirm that any impact of operational water withdrawal by

19 Ginna will be on a nearshore fish community that is typical for the southern shoreline of Lake

20 Ontario. Ginna operations only affect a small region of the southern shoreline of the lake. 

21 Thus, RG&E concluded in the ER that Ginna operations will have a negligible impact on the

22 identified species.

23

24 The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

25 staff’s site visit, the NYSDEC, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this

26 information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts due to entrainment of early life stages of

27 fish and shellfish by continued operation and maintenance of Ginna. It is the staff’s preliminary

28 conclusion that the potential impacts due to entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages

29 during the renewal term are SMALL.

30

31 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

32 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

33 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

34 “significant”) were considered. Based on the assessment to date, the staff expects that the

35 measures in place at Ginna (e.g., placement of the intake structure) provide mitigation for

36 impacts related to entrainment, and no new mitigation measures are warranted.

37
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish

2

3 Impingement has been extensively monitored and impingement impacts evaluated at Ginna

4 each year since 1973. NYSDEC has required submittal of annual reports on impingement

5 monitoring as part of Ginna’s SPDES permit. From 1997 through 2001, on average, over 625

6 fish per billion liters (165 fish per billion gallons) of water were impinged at Ginna. Table 4-3

7 lists the principal species collected in the impingement program. The three most common

8 species impinged are all introduced species to Lake Ontario.

9

10 Table 4-3. List of the Fish from Lake Ontario Impinged at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

11 Plant from 1997 Through 2001 (RG&E 2002b)

12

13

Average Fish

Impingement Rate

Percent of

Individuals

Collected

14 Scientific Name Common Name

(Fish per

Billion Liters)

(Fish per

Billion Gallons)

(Average over

5 years)

15 Gasterosteus aculeatus threespine stickleback 281.04 (74.25) 44.93

16 Osmerus mordax rainbow smelt 132.93 (35.12) 21.25

17 Alosa pseudoharengus alewife 118.85 (31.40) 19.00

18 Notropis hudsonius spottial shiner 29.90 (7.90) 4.78

19 Cottus bairdi mottled sculpin 11.58 (3.06) 1.85

20 Micropterus dolomieui smallmouth bass 10.79 (2.85) 1.72

21 Cottus cognatus slimy sculpin 9.27 (2.45) 1.48

22 Salvelinus namaycush lake trout 7.87 (2.08) 1.26

23 Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad 6.62 (1.75) 1.06

24 Noturus flavus stonecat 3.75 (0.99) 0.60

25 All other species 13.02 (3.44) 2.07

26

27 Impingement impact assessments for Ginna have been developed over the years in

28 consultation with NYSDEC. For alewife and smelt, the total annual projected number impinged

29 is compared to the Lake Ontario (New York state waters) population for that species and year

30 as reported by NYSDEC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). RG&E then calculates

31 the percentage of the lake population impinged and makes a determination of impact, which is

32 reported to NYSDEC. Because lake population information is not available for other species, a

33 qualitative approach must be used, primarily using information provided by NYSDEC.

34
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-12 June 2003

1 Based on information collected from 1983 through 2001, Ginna has impinged an estimated

2 0.001 percent of the alewife population and 0.0008 percent of the smelt population in Lake

3 Ontario. These impingement losses are considered negligible in relation to the lake populations

4 for both species. Using the maximum values, these findings show that only about three

5 alewives for every 100,000 in the New York state waters of Lake Ontario, and three smelt for

6 every 100,000 in the New York state waters, would be impinged. The most recent RG&E

7 Impingement Program Report concluded that the impingement impact per year for alewife and

8 smelt is very low and must be considered negligible (RG&E 2002b).

9

10 Impingement impact determinations regarding other species are limited to qualitative

11 evaluations because there are no estimates of their populations within Lake Ontario. 

12 Section 2.2.5 discusses the overall lakewide reductions in fish populations as reported by

13 NYSDEC through their annual assessments within the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario. 

14 Correspondingly, Ginna impingement numbers have declined substantially throughout the past

15 29 years.

16

17 The alewife and smelt impingement data indicate that the percentage of the lake population

18 impinged is fairly constant and correlates with abundance in the lake. NYSDEC studies since

19 1976 have shown that the alewife and smelt populations in Lake Ontario have declined. This is

20 consistent with the impingement data, which show generally decreasing numbers, similar to

21 what is being reported for the lake overall.

22

23 Impingement studies have consistently demonstrated that Ginna intake system operations have

24 an extremely limited and minimal impact upon alewife and smelt populations. Likewise,

25 impingement of other species has been consistent with lakewide trends and indicates no

26 localized impacts. Based on these facts, RG&E concluded in the ER that impingement impacts

27 from Ginna operations during the license renewal period will not be substantially different from

28 those previously evaluated and approved within the SPDES permit process (RG&E 2002a). 

29 The current SPDES permit includes similar requirements on assessing impingement, including

30 annual reports on the impingement monitoring reports, and does not call for mitigative efforts at

31 this time (NYSDEC 2003a).

32

33 The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

34 staff’s site visit, the NYSDEC, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this

35 information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts due to impingement of fish and shellfish by

36 continued operation and maintenance of Ginna. It is the staff’s preliminary conclusion that the

37 potential impacts due to impingement of fish and shellfish during the renewal term are SMALL.

38

39 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

40 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

2 “significant”) were considered. Based on the assessment to date, the staff expects that the

3 measures in place at Ginna (e.g., the offshore, underwater intake) provide mitigation for all

4 impacts related to impingement, and no new mitigation measures are warranted.

5

6 4.1.3 Heat Shock

7

8 The issue of heat shock to fish and shellfish resources from thermal discharges into Lake

9 Ontario has been investigated by RG&E in support of the Clean Water Act Section 316(a)

10 variance for Ginna (RG&E 1977) and in compliance with subsequent NYSDEC SPDES permits

11 (RG&E 2002a). Of primary concern is the impact of heat shock on impinged fish that are

12 returned to the discharge canal and subsequently into Lake Ontario. In addition to heat shock,

13 fish impinged at Ginna are subjected to the stress of being impinged on the intake screen and

14 passage through the fish return system.

15

16 Heat shock to fish is a function of the temperature increase that the fish are subjected to in the

17 discharge canal and the residence time of the fish in the elevated temperatures of the

18 discharge flow (Fry 1971; Dean 1973). Residence time at Ginna is determined by the

19 discharge velocity and the distance that the fish have to travel before reaching cooler

20 temperatures. Discharge velocities in the area where the impinged fish are returned range from

21 0.6 to 1.5 m/s (2.0 to 5.0 fps). The distance that the fish have to travel before reaching the

22 point of entry into the lake, and ambient water temperatures, is about 30 m (100 ft). Thus, the

23 residence time the fish would be in elevated temperatures is approximately 20 to 50 seconds. 

24 RG&E concluded that a fish subjected to discharge temperatures for less than a minute would

25 not be adversely affected. There are areas within the discharge canal that can reach upper

26 lethal threshold temperatures for representative fish. However, the residence time for even a

27 fish that becomes disoriented from the heat would be less than would be expected to cause

28 death (RG&E 2002a). This conclusion is further supported in a recent review by Beitinger et al.

29 (Beitinger 2000) concerning temperature tolerances of North American freshwater fishes that

30 includes many of the representative important species identified for Ginna.

31

32 The Ginna 316(a) Demonstration Supplement (RG&E 1977) discussed the potential of heat

33 shock to impinged fish and concluded:

34

35 This supplement demonstrates that the shoreline surface discharge of the Ginna Nuclear

36 Power Plant assures the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic

37 community as exemplified by the Representative Important Species at the Ginna Site.

38
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-14 June 2003

1 Since 1985, NYSDEC has approved the conclusion in the Ginna 316(a) Demonstration

2 Supplement in the SPDES permit for the operation of Ginna. The current SPDES permit states:

3

4 The water temperature at the surface of Lake Ontario shall not be raised more than three

5 Fahrenheit degrees over the temperature that existed before the addition of heat of artificial

6 origin except that in a mixing zone consisting of an area of 320 acres from the point of

7 discharge, this temperature may be exceeded.

8

9 Further evaluation of heat shock on impinged fish returned to the discharge canal may be

10 required as part of the NYSDEC SPDES permit program. NYSDEC issued a proposed

11 modification to the SPDES permit for review and comment that would require RG&E to conduct

12 an assessment of the potential for increased mortality to impinged fish returned to the

13 discharge canal due to thermal stress (NYSDEC 2003c). This study, if incorporated into the

14 SPDES permit, would be required to be completed in 2004, at which time NYSDEC would

15 determine whether additional mitigation is required.

16

17 The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

18 staff’s site visit, the NYSDEC, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this

19 information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts to aquatic resources due to heat shock

20 during continued operation and maintenance of Ginna. It is the staff’s preliminary conclusion

21 that the potential impacts to aquatic resources due to heat shock during the renewal term are

22 SMALL.

23

24 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

25 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

26 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

27 “significant”) were considered. Based on the assessment to date, the staff expects that the

28 measures in place at Ginna (e.g., design and placement of the discharge) provide mitigation for

29 all impacts related to heat shock, and no new mitigation measures are warranted.

30

31 4.2 Transmission Lines

32

33 The Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1,

34 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (AEC 1973) describes four transmission lines running

35 in the same right-of way that connect Ginna with the transmission system. This transmission

36 line right-of-way covers approximately 85 ha (210 ac) over a total length of approximately 5.6

37 km (3.5 mi). Tree trimming is normally only required at mid-span. Herbicides are used

38 occasionally, primarily applied to individual trees or shrubs to prevent re-sprouting. Mowing is

39 used only to provide access to individual towers when needed. The applicant uses only non40 restricted-use herbicides, and these are applied under the supervision of licensed pesticide
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 applicators. Buffer strips are left adjacent to wetlands and stream crossings. RG&E has a New

2 York State Public Service Commission-approved long-range vegetation management plan for

3 its transmission line rights-of-way (RG&E 1995).

4

5 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

6 transmission lines from Ginna are listed in Table 4-4. In the Ginna ER, RG&E stated that it is

7 not aware of any new and significant information concerning the transmission lines or right-of8 way maintenance for the Category 1 issues associated with the renewal of the Ginna OL. The

9 staff conducted an independent review of the Ginna ER, a site visit, the scoping process,

10 consultation with the FWS and NYSDEC, and an evaluation of other available information. The

11 staff concludes that there are no impacts related to the Category 1 issues discussed in the

12 GEIS or for the new issue identified during scoping. For all of these issues, the staff’s

13 preliminary conclusions are that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation

14 measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

15

16 Table 4-4. Category 1 Issues Applicable to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Transmission

17 Lines During the Renewal Term

18

19 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

20 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

21 Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application) 4.5.6.1

22 Bird collisions with power lines 4.5.6.2

23 Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops,

24 honeybees, wildlife, livestock)

4.5.6.3

25 Flood plains and wetland on power line right-of-way 4.5.7

26 AIR QUALITY

27 Air-quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2

28 LAND USE

29 Onsite land use 4.5.3

30 Power line right-of-way 4.5.3

31

32 A brief description of the staff’s review and GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR Part 51,

33 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows.

34

35  Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application). Based on

36 information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

37
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-16 June 2003

1

2 The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of

3 small significance at all sites.

4

5 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

6 concludes that there are no impacts of power line right-of-way maintenance during the

7 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

8

9  Bird collisions with power lines. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

10 found that

1112

13 Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites.

14

15 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

16 concludes that there are no impacts of bird collisions with power lines during the renewal

17 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

18

19  Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops,

20 honeybees, wildlife, livestock). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

21 found that

2223

24 No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna

25 have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during

26 the license renewal term.

27

28 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

29 concludes that there are no impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna during the

30 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

31

32  Flood plains and wetlands on power line right-of-way. Based on information in the GEIS,

33 the Commission found that

3435

36 Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath

37 power lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No

38 significant impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license

39 renewal term.

40

41 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

42 concludes that there are no impacts of power line rights-of-way on flood plains and wetlands

43 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  Air-quality effects of transmission lines. Based on the information in the GEIS, the

2 Commission found that

34

5 Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not

6 contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases.

7

8 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

9 concludes that there are no air quality impacts of transmission lines during the renewal term

10 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

11

12  Onsite land use. Based on the information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

1314

15 Projected onsite land use changes required during ... the renewal period would

16 be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that

17 is controlled by the applicant.

18

19 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

20 concludes that there are no onsite land-use impacts during the renewal term beyond those

21 discussed in the GEIS.

22

23  Power line right-of-way (land use). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found

24 that

2526

27 Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no change in

28 restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.

29

30 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

31 concludes that there are no impacts of power line rights-of-way during the renewal term

32 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

33

34 Category 2 and uncategorized issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that

35 are applicable to transmission lines from Ginna are listed in Table 4-5, and are discussed in

36 Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

37

38
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-18 June 2003

1 Table 4-5. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear

2 Power Plant Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term

3

4 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

5 Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS

Section

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

6 HUMAN HEALTH

7 Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric

8 shock)

4.5.4.1 H 4.2.1

9 Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects 4.5.4.2 NA 4.2.2

10

11 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields—Acute Effects

12

13 In the GEIS, the Commission found that without a review of the conformance of each nuclear

14 plant transmission line to the criteria established in the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC)

15 (IEEE 1997), it was not possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential. 

16 Evaluation of individual plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric shock

17 safety was not addressed in the licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land use in

18 the vicinity of transmission lines may have changed, or power distribution companies may have

19 chosen to upgrade line voltage. To comply with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), an applicant must

20 provide an assessment of the potential shock hazard if the transmission lines that were

21 constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not

22 meet the recommendations of the NESC for preventing electric shock from induced currents.

23

24 To support its conclusion that the four 115-kV transmission lines at Ginna are in compliance with

25 the NESC 5-mA, electric-field-induced current limit, RG&E performed field measurements. 

26 These measurements demonstrated compliance. The Ginna transmission lines are within the

27 scope of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license renewal environmental review,

28 and are below the size of concern for induced shock. Field measurements demonstrate the

29 electric-field-induced currents from these transmission lines are well below the NESC

30 recommendations for preventing electric shock from induced currents (RG&E 2002a).

31

32 The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

33 staff’s site visit, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this information, the staff

34 evaluated the potential impacts for electric shock resulting from operation of Ginna and

35 associated transmission lines. It is the staff’s preliminary conclusion that the potential impacts

36 for electric shock during the renewal term are SMALL.

37

38 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

39 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not “significant”)

2 were considered. Based on the assessment to date, the staff expects that the measures in

3 place at Ginna (e.g., transmission lines in compliance with the NESC) provide mitigation for all

4 impacts related to acute effects of electromagnetic fields, and no new mitigation measures are

5 warranted.

6

7 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields—Chronic Effects

8

9 In the GEIS, the chronic effects of 60-hz electromagnetic fields from power lines were not

10 designated as Category 1 or 2, and will not be categorized until a scientific consensus is

11 reached on the health implications of these fields.

12

13 The potential for chronic effects from these fields is not known at this time and continues to be

14 studied. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related

15 research through the U.S. Department of Energy. A NIEHS report (NIEHS 1999) contains the

16 following conclusion:

17

18 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF [extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field]

19 exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

20 exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant

21 aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States

22 uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is

23 warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated

24 community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other

25 cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently

26 warrant concern.

27

28 This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to change its position with respect to the

29 chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. The staff considers the GEIS finding of “not applicable”

30 still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.

31

32 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

33

34 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

35 Ginna in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-6. RG&E stated in the Ginna ER

36 that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the

37 Ginna OL. No new and significant information on these issues has been identified by the staff

38 during its independent review of the Ginna ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process,

39 discussions with other agencies, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff

40 concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-20 June 2003

1 GEIS. For these issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and

2 plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

3

4 Table 4-6. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

5 During the Renewal Term

6

7 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

8 HUMAN HEALTH

9 Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2

10 Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3

11

12 A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR Part 51,

13 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows.

14

15  Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the

16 Commission found that

17

18 Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with

19 normal operations.

20

21 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

22 concludes that there are no impacts of radiation exposures to the public during the renewal

23 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

24

25  Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in the

26 GEIS, the Commission found that

27

28 Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are

29 within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal

30 maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.

31

32 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

33 concludes that there are no impacts of occupational radiation exposures during the renewal

34 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

35

36 There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations.

37
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the

2 License Renewal Term

3

4 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

5 socioeconomic impacts during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-7. RG&E stated in the

6 Ginna ER that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal

7 of the Ginna OL. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

8 independent review of the RG&E ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, discussions with

9 other agencies, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there

10 are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these issues,

11 the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific

12 mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

13

14 Table 4-7. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term

15

16 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

17 SOCIOECONOMIC

18 Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 4.7.3; 4.7.3.3; 4.7.3.4;

4.7.3.6

19 Public services: education (license renewal term) 4.7.3.1

20 Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6

21 Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term) 4.5.8

22

23 A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR Part 51,

24 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows.

25

26  Public services – public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation. Based on

27 information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

28

29 Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are expected

30 to be of small significance at all sites.

31

32 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

33 concludes that there are no impacts on public safety, social services, and tourism and

34 recreation during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

35
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-22 June 2003

1  Public services – education (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS,

2 the Commission found that

3

4 Only impacts of small significance are expected.

5

6 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

7 concludes that there are no impacts on education during the renewal term beyond those

8 discussed in the GEIS.

9

10  Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the

11 Commission found that

12

13 No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

14

15 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

16 concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts during the renewal term beyond those

17 discussed in the GEIS.

18

19  Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term). Based on information in

20 the GEIS, the Commission found that

21

22 No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

23

24 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

25 concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts of transmission lines during the renewal term

26 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

27

28 Table 4-8 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues that require plant-specific analysis and

29 environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GEIS. These issues are discussed in

30 Sections 4.4.1 through 4.4.6.

31

32
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 4-8. Environmental Justice and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable to

2 Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term

3

4 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

5 Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph SEIS Section

6 SOCIOECONOMIC

7 Housing impacts 4.7.1 I 4.4.1

8 Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 I 4.4.2

9 Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 I 4.4.3

10 Public services, transportation 4.7.3.2 J 4.4.4

11 Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 K 4.4.5

12 Environmental justice Not addressed(a) Not addressed(a) 4.4.6

13 (a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated revision to

14 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. Therefore, environmental justice must be addressed in the licensee’s ER and

15 the staff’s environmental impact statement.

16

17 4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations

18

19 Impacts on housing are considered SMALL when a small or not easily discernible change in

20 housing availability occurs. Impacts are considered MODERATE when there is discernible but

21 short-lived reduction in available housing units because of project-induced migration. Impacts

22 are considered LARGE when project-related housing demands result in very limited housing

23 availability and would increase rental rates and housing values well above normal inflation

24 (NRC 1996).

25

26 In determining housing impacts, the applicant chose to follow Appendix C of the GEIS

27 (NRC 1996), which presents a population characterization method that is based on two factors,

28 “sparseness” and “proximity.” Sparseness measures population density within 32 km (20 mi) of

29 the site, and proximity measures population density and city size within 80 km (50 mi). Each

30 factor has categories of density and size (GEIS Table C.1), and a matrix is used to rank the

31 population category as low, medium, or high (GEIS Figure C.1).

32

33 During 2000, the population living within 32 km (20 mi) of Ginna was estimated to be

34 approximately 581,745 (USCB 2000). This total converts to a population density of about

357 persons/km2 (926 persons/mi2 35 ) living on the land area within a 32-km (20-mi) radius of
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) These numbers differ from those presented in the Ginna ER. In their calculations, RG&E took the

surface area in the 32-km (20-mi) and 80-km (50-mil) radii and distributed the population evenly

within the circles. However, the circles encompass a large area of Lake Ontario. It was assumed

that the lake encompasses half the area for the 32-km (20-mi) and 80-km (50-mi) circles. As such,

the population concentrations were adjusted, resulting in higher population concentrations than

those reported in the Ginna ER.

(b) Note that these conclusions differ from the Ginna ER for the reasons stated in footnote (a).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-24 June 2003

Ginna.(a) 1 This concentration falls into the GEIS sparseness Category 4 (i.e., having greater than

or equal to 46 persons/km2 [120 persons/mi2 2 ]) (USCB 2000).

3

4 An estimated 1.25 million people live within 80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site (USCB 2000),

equating to a population density of around 124 persons/km2 (318 persons/mi2 5 ) on the available

land area.(b) 6 Applying the GEIS proximity measures (NRC 1996), Ginna is classified as

Category 4 (i.e., having greater than or equal to 73 persons/km2 [190 persons/mi2 7 ] within 80 km

8 [50 mi] of the site). According to the GEIS criteria, these sparseness and proximity scores place

9 Ginna in a high-population area.

10

11 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, states that impacts on housing availability

12 are expected to be of SMALL significance at plants located in a high-population area where

13 growth-control measures are not in effect. The Ginna site is located in a high-population area. 

14 Monroe and Wayne Counties are not subject to growth-control measures that would limit

15 housing development.

16

17 SMALL impacts result when no discernible change in housing availability occurs, changes in

18 rental rates and housing values are similar to those occurring statewide, and no housing

19 construction or conversion is required to meet new demand (NRC 1996). The GEIS assumes

20 that an additional staff of 60 permanent per-unit workers might be needed during the license

21 renewal period to perform routine maintenance and other activities. RG&E does not plan any

22 new refurbishment activity as part of the license renewal process; therefore, employment will not

23 change in the area as result of license renewal. Thus, RG&E concludes that there are no

24 impacts to housing from license renewal activities (RG&E 2002a). However, to establish an

25 upper bound on possible increased employment during the license renewal term, RG&E

26 assumes the hiring of 60 additional permanent workers. It is assumed that the hiring of these

27 additional 60 employees would result in 40 indirect jobs, or an increased demand for a total of

28 100 housing units. Using the fact that 92 percent of its employees live in Monroe and Wayne

29 Counties (Table 2-5), RG&E concludes that a demand for 92 housing units would be created in

30 the two counties. The demand for the housing units could be met with the construction of new

31 houses or the use of existing, unoccupied houses. In 2000, Wayne and Monroe Counties had a

32 total of 343,000 housing units (Table 2-6), and vacancy rates in both counties were more than

33 5 percent. The increase in projected housing units would not create a discernible change in
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) The RG&E estimate of 100 housing units (92 units for Monroe and Wayne Counties) is likely to be

an extreme “upper bound” estimate. Most of the potentially new jobs would likely be filled by

existing area residents, thus creating no, or little, net demand for housing.

June 2003 4-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 housing availability, a change in rental rates or housing values, or spur new construction or

2 conversion. As a result, RG&E concludes that the impacts would be SMALL, and mitigation

measures would not be necessary or effective (RG&E 2002a).(a) 3

4

5 The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

6 staff’s site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources. 

7 Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential housing impacts resulting from operation

8 of Ginna during the license renewal term. It is the staff’s preliminary conclusion that the

9 potential housing impacts during the renewal term are SMALL.

10

11 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

12 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

13 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not “significant”)

14 were considered. Based on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures in place at

15 Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to housing, and no new mitigation measures are

16 warranted.

17

18 4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations

19

20 Impacts on public utility services are considered SMALL if there is little or no change in the ability

21 of the system to respond to the level of demand, so there is no need to add capital facilities. 

22 Impacts are considered MODERATE if overtaxing of service capabilities occurs during periods of

23 peak demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if existing levels of service (e.g., water or sewer

24 services) are substantially degraded and additional capacity is needed to meet ongoing

25 demands for services. The GEIS indicates that, in the absence of new and significant

26 information to the contrary, the only impacts on public utilities that could be significant are

27 impacts on public water supplies (NRC 1996).

28

29 Analysis of impacts on the public water supply system considered both plant demand and plant30 related population growth. Section 2.2.2 describes the Ginna-permitted withdrawal rate and

31 actual use of water. RG&E plans no refurbishment at Ginna, so plant demand would not change

32 beyond current demands (RG&E 2002a).

33

34 In the ER, RG&E assumed, for the purposes of impact analysis only, an increase of

35 60 employees to perform license renewal activities. RG&E also assumed the generation of

36 100 new jobs and a net overall population increase of approximately 308 as a result of those
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) Calculated by assuming that the average number of persons per household is 3.08 in the State of

New York (100 jobs × 3.08 = 308) (USCB 2000).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-26 June 2003

jobs.(a) 1 The plant-related population increase would increase demand for water by an additional

60 to 90 m3/d (1.6 × 10-2 to 2.3 × 10-2 2 MGD) (RG&E 2002a). This amount is within the total

3 residual capacity of the water treatment plants serving Monroe and Wayne Counties (Table 2-8).

4

5 The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

6 staff’s site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources. 

7 Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts of increased water use resulting

8 from the potential increase in employment. It is the staff’s preliminary conclusion that the

9 potential impacts of increased water use resulting from the potential increase in employment

10 during the renewal term are SMALL.

11

12 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

13 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

14 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not “significant”)

15 were considered. Based on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures in place at

16 Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to public services, and no new mitigation

17 measures are warranted.

18

19 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations

20

21 Offsite land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue (10 CFR Part 51,

22 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, notes

23 that “significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue

24 changes resulting from license renewal.”

25

26 Section 4.7.4 of the GEIS defines the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of plant

27 operation during the license renewal term as follows:

28

29 SMALL – Little new development and minimal changes to an area’s land-use pattern.

30

31 MODERATE – Considerable new development and some changes to the land-use pattern.

32

33 LARGE – Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use pattern.

34

35 For the purposes of impact analysis, RG&E has identified the need for a maximum of 60

36 additional employees to perform license renewal activities during the license renewal term plus

37 an additional 40 indirect jobs (total 100) in the community (RG&E 2002a). Section 3.7.5 of the
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 GEIS (NRC 1996) states that if plant-related population growth is less than 5 percent of the

2 study area’s total population, offsite land-use changes would be small, especially if the study

3 area has established patterns of residential and commercial development, a population density

of at least 23 persons/km2 (60 persons/mi2 4 ), and at least one urban area with a population of

5 100,000 or more within 80 km (50 mi). In this case, population growth will be less than 5 percent

6 of the area’s total population, the area has established patterns of residential and commercial

development (Table 2-9), a population density of well over 23 persons/km2 (60 persons/mi2 7 ), and

8 an urban area with a population of 100,000 or more within 80 km (50 mi). Consequently, the

9 staff concludes that population changes resulting from license renewal are likely to result in

10 SMALL offsite land-use impacts.

11

12 Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to provide the public

13 services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development. Section 4.7.4.1 of

14 the GEIS states that the assessment of tax-driven land-use impacts during the license renewal

15 term should consider (1) the size of the plant’s payments relative to the community’s total

16 revenues, (2) the nature of the community’s existing land-use pattern, and (3) the extent to

17 which the community already has public services in place to support and guide development. If

18 the plant’s tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community’s total revenue,

19 tax-driven, land-use changes during the plant’s license renewal term would be small, especially

20 where the community has pre-established patterns of development and has provided adequate

21 public services to support and guide development. Section 4.7.2.1 of the GEIS states that if tax

22 payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of the taxing jurisdiction’s revenue, the

23 significance level would be SMALL (NRC 1996). If a plant’s tax payments are projected to be

24 medium-to-large relative to the community’s total revenue, the impact of new tax-driven, land25 use changes would be MODERATE. The average percentage of the total revenue for

26 Wayne County, the town of Ontario, and the Wayne Central School District derived from

27 property taxes paid by RG&E for Ginna are 2 percent (1995 to 2001), 13.2 percent (1995 to

28 2001), and 12.4 percent (1995 to 1999), respectively.

29

30 The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

31 staff’s site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources. 

32 Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts on offsite land use resulting from

33 operation of Ginna. While the tax receipts are large enough to potentially result in moderate

34 impacts on land use, these receipts are expected to decrease in the future. Tax receipts from

35 past operation of Ginna have not resulted in significant changes in land use in Wayne County. 

36 Development has been focused on the west side of the county, and appears to be driven by

37 residential demand within a short commute distance from Rochester. There has also been little

38 retail or commercial development in the county. The criteria in the GEIS (Section C.4.1.5.2)

39 results in the assignment of an impact level of MODERATE when tax levels are greater than

40 10%. However, the case study assumed a certain level of refurbishment. As no major
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-28 June 2003

1 refurbishment activities are planned at Ginna to support license renewal, no new sources of

2 plant-related tax payments are expected that could significantly affect land use in Wayne

3 County. Based on these considerations, it is the staff's preliminary conclusion that the tax4 related land-use impacts are likely to be SMALL.

5

6 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

7 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

8 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not “significant”)

9 were considered. Based on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures in place at

10 Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to offsite land use, and no new mitigation

11 measures are warranted.

12

13 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations

14

15 On October 4, 1999, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

16 Table B-1, were revised to clearly state that “Public Services: Transportation Impacts During

17 Operations” is a Category 2 issue (see NRC 1999 for more discussion of this clarification). The

18 issue is treated as such in this draft SEIS.

19

20 As noted in Section 2.2.8.2, NYS Route 104 serves as the primary east-west corridor in this

21 area, as indicated by volume of traffic. Traffic volume ranges from 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles

22 with the higher volumes existing near the entrance to Monroe County. Traffic volume on much

23 of NYS Route 104 in the vicinity of Ginna is well below capacity, while some of the two-lane

24 portions east of the town of Ontario are characterized as near capacity. Traffic volumes,

25 however, drop off dramatically on north-south routes crossing NYS Route 104 that access

26 County Route 101 and, subsequently, Ginna (RG&E 2002a).

27

28 The bounding scenario of 60 additional license renewal staff represents less than 3 percent of

29 the traffic volume on County Route 101, and if it is assumed that all employees would use

30 Ontario Center Road (Figure 2-4) to access the site from NYS Route 104, an increase of

31 60 additional vehicles represents less than 1 percent of the volume. The north-south routes for

32 which capacity information is available indicate that these roads are well below capacity (less

33 than 50 percent). Based on these facts, RG&E concluded that the impacts on transportation

34 during the license renewal term would be SMALL, and no mitigative measures would be

35 warranted (RG&E 2002a).

36

37 The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

38 staff’s site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources. 

39 Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts to transportation service
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) Personal communication (e-mail) with Nancy Todd, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and

Historic Preservation, Waterford, New York (December 27, 2002). 

June 2003 4-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 resulting from operation of Ginna. It is the staff’s preliminary conclusion that the potential

2 impacts to transportation service degradation during the renewal term are SMALL.

3

4 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

5 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

6 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not “significant”)

7 were considered. Based on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures in place at

8 Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to transportation, and no new mitigation

9 measures are warranted.

10

11 4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources

12

13 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies take into account

14 the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, including significant archaeological sites. 

15 The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in

16 regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800. 

17 Renewal of an OL is an undertaking that could potentially affect historic properties. Therefore,

18 according to the NHPA, the NRC is required to make a good faith effort to identify historic

19 properties in the areas of potential effects. The NRC is required to notify the State Historic

20 Preservation Officer (SHPO) of the results of those efforts and of any properties that might be

21 adversely affected by the undertaking before proceeding. If it is determined that historic

22 properties are present, the NRC is required to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of

23 the undertaking in consultation with the SHPO.

24

25 The Ginna site includes one structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic

26 Places (NRHP). The transmission line that leads south from the plant is in proximity to an

27 historic district listed on the NRHP. The 197-ha (488-ac) Ginna site lies in an area considered

archaeologically sensitive by the SHPO(a) 28 and culturally highly sensitive by the Seneca Nation of

29 New York (Mitchell and Maybee 2002).

30

31 The Brookwood Estate Manor House is considered historically significant and eligible for

inclusion in the NRHP by the SHPO(a) 32 . RG&E initially used the home for meetings and

33 gatherings, but later it fell into disuse. The structure has been restored and is now once again

34 used by Ginna staff for meetings and social events. It is also used by the Wayne Central High

35 School for an alternative special education program. Current RG&E management of the
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-30 June 2003

1 Brookwood Estate Manor House appears to be an effective adaptive reuse of the structure that

2 preserves the historic qualities of the building.

3

4 While the transmission line right-of-way passes directly west of the Brick Church Corners historic

5 district, it does not adversely affect the historical setting of the district. The transmission lines

6 are hung from wooden supports, and the edges of the right-of-way are tree-lined. When the

7 trees are in leaf, the transmission lines are mostly obscured from sight. Renewal of the OL

8 should not affect any of the other historic properties near Ginna.

9

10 Since no archaeological surveys have been conducted at the Ginna site, it is not known whether

11 archaeological sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP exist there. Archaeological sites have

12 been recorded in proximity to Ginna. The proximity of Ginna to Lake Ontario, the two streams

13 that run through the property and empty into the lake, and the existence of archeological sites

14 along other reaches of those streams have led the SHPO to determine that the undeveloped and

agriculturally developed portions of the Ginna site are archaeologically sensitive(a) 15 .

16

17 It is likely that the Ginna site was used in prehistoric times for hunting and fishing. Lake Ontario

18 also provided a trade route used in both prehistoric and proto-historic times. The area lies within

19 the traditional range of the Seneca. The Seneca Nation of New York has determined that the

20 area has a high probability of including traditional Native American cultural properties, and finds

21 the area culturally highly sensitive (Mitchell and Maybee 2002).

22

23 The proposed action includes no new construction or refurbishment. Thus, any historic or

24 archaeological resources at Ginna should not be adversely impacted by renewal of the OL. If

25 there is future development at the Ginna site, the development could adversely affect historic or

26 archaeological resources. Development actions that could impact resources include ground27 disturbing activities beyond current practices and any actions that would damage or significantly

28 change the Brookwood Manor House. The impacts of such actions could be mitigated through

29 appropriate measures, including regular maintenance of the estate, timely consultation,

30 avoidance, and data recovery. 

31

32 The staff reviewed information provided by the applicant, the staff’s site visit, the SHPO, the

33 Seneca Nation of New York, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this

34 information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts on historic and archaeological resources

35 resulting from continued operation of Ginna for an additional 20 years. It is the staff’s

36 preliminary conclusion that the potential impacts to known historic and archaeological resources

37 during the renewal term are SMALL.

38

39 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

40 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) The NRC Guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines “minority” as American

Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black not of Hispanic Origin, or Hispanic

(NRC 2001).

(b) A census block group is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of a

census tract. A census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the U.S. Census Bureau

(USCB) collects and tabulates decennial census information. A census tract is a small, relatively

permanent statistical subdivision of counties delineated by local committees of census data users in

accordance with USCB guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census

data. Census block groups are subsets of census tracts (USCB 2001).

June 2003 4-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not “significant”)

2 were considered and no additional mitigation is required.

3

4 4.4.6 Environmental Justice

5

6 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy that requires Federal agencies to identify and

7 address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its actions on minority(a) 8 or low-income populations. The memorandum accompanying

9 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal executive agencies to consider

10 environmental justice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Council

11 on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental justice

12 (CEQ 1997). Although the Executive Order is not mandatory for independent agencies, the

13 NRC has voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews. Specific guidance is

14 provided in NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Instruction LIC-203, “Procedural

15 Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues”

16 (NRC 2001).

17

18 The staff examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within

19 80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site, employing the 2000 census for low-income and minority

20 populations (USCB 2000). The populations within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of Ginna

21 encompassed parts of 13 counties. The staff supplemented its analysis by field inquires to

22 county planning departments, social service agencies, personnel in Wayne and Monroe

23 Counties, and a private social service agency in Wayne County.

24

25 For the purpose of the staff’s review, a minority population is defined to exist if the percentage of

each minority, or aggregated minority category within the census block groups(b) 26 potentially

27 affected by the license renewal of Ginna, exceeds the corresponding percentage of minorities in

28 the entire State of New York by 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of minorities
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-32 June 2003

1 within the census block group is at least 50 percent. A low-income population is defined to exist

2 if the percentage of low-income population within a census block group exceeds the

3 corresponding percentage of low-income population in the entire State of New York by

4 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of low-income population within a census block

5 group is at least 50 percent.

6

7 The staff followed the convention of employing 2000 census block group data to identify minority

8 and low-income block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of Ginna. Using this convention,

9 the 80-km (50-mi) radius includes 143 census block groups for minority populations and 173

10 census block groups for low-income populations (Figures 4-1 and 4-2) (USCB 2000). The “more

11 than 20 percentage points” above the comparison area criterion was used to determine whether

12 a census block group should be counted as containing minority or low-income populations. 

13 Because the 20 percentage points criterion is a lower threshold, the 50 percent criterion was not

14 used (RG&E 2002a).

15

16 The staff followed the convention of employing census block groups and counts of individuals in

17 minority or low-income status. Figure 4-1 shows the distribution of minority populations (shaded

18 areas) within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. Minority populations are present in all counties within the

19 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Ginna site. Minority populations are primarily concentrated in the

20 urban center of Rochester. Monroe County contains 142 of the 143 block groups containing

21 significant minority populations.

22

23 Data from the 2000 census characterize low-income populations within the 80-km (50-mi) radius

24 of the Ginna site. Applying the NRC criterion of “more than 20 percent greater,” the census

25 block groups containing low-income populations were identified. Figure 4-2 shows the locations

26 of the low-income populations within 80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site. The lower income

27 populations are concentrated around the urban center of Rochester, where 137 of the 173 low28 income block groups are found. Wayne County has 34 low-income block groups (USCB 2000).

29

30 With the locations of minority and low-income populations identified, the staff evaluated whether

31 any of the environmental impacts of the proposed action could affect these populations in a

32 disproportionately high and adverse manner. Based on staff guidance (NRC 2001), air, land,

33 and water resources within about 80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site were examined. Within that

34 area, a few potential environmental impacts could affect human populations, but all of these

35 impacts were considered SMALL for the general population. 

36

37 The pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with Ginna license renewal

38 can affect human populations are discussed in each associated section. During its review of the

39 information, including that provided by the applicant, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process,

40 discussions with other agencies, and other public sources, the staff found no unusual resource

41 dependencies or practices such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1

2 Figure 4-1. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas) Within 

3 80 km (50 mi) of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site Based on Census

4 Block Group Data
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-34 June 2003

1

2 Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (shown in shaded areas)

3 Within 80 km (50 mi) of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site Based on

4 Census Block Group Data
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 minority and/or low-income populations could be disproportionately highly and adversely

2 affected. In addition, the staff did not identify any location-dependent disproportionately high

3 and adverse impacts that would affect these minority and low-income populations. The staff’s

4 preliminary conclusion is that potential offsite impacts from Ginna to minority and low-income

5 populations during the renewal term are SMALL.

6

7 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

8 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

9 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not “significant”)

10 were considered. Based on the assessment to date, the staff expects that the measures in

11 place at Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to environmental justice, and no new

12 mitigation measures are warranted.

13

14 4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality

15

There are no groundwater withdrawals at Ginna, and RG&E imports less than 4 m3 16 /min

17 (100 gpm) for plant use. Therefore, the Category 1 issue, groundwater use and quality, in

18 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, is applicable to Ginna. This issue is listed in

19 Table 4-9. RG&E stated in the Ginna ER that it is not aware of any new and significant

20 information associated with the renewal of the Ginna OL. The staff has not identified any new

21 and significant information on this issue during its independent review of the ER, the staff’s site

22 visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, or its evaluation of other information. 

23 Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to this issue beyond those

24 discussed in the GEIS. For this issue, the staff concludes that the impacts are SMALL, and

25 plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

26

27 Table 4-9. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the

28 Renewal Term

29

30 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS

Section

31 GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

32 Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gpm). 4.8.1.1

33

34 A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR Part 51,

35 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, 10 CFR Part 51, follows.

36
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-36 June 2003

1  Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gpm).

2

3 Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

4

5 Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-water use

6 conflicts.

7

Ginna groundwater use is less than 4 m3 8 /min (100 gpm). The staff has not identified any 

9 new and significant information on this issue. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are

10 no groundwater-use conflicts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

11

12 There are no Category 2 issues related to groundwater use and quality for Ginna.

13

14 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species

15

16 Threatened or endangered species are listed as a Category 2 issue in 10 CFR Part 51,

17 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue is listed in Table 4-10.

18

19 Table 4-10. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During the

20 Renewal Term

21

22 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

23 Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS

Section

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

24 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

25 Threatened or endangered species 4.1 E 4.6

26

27 This issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether threatened or

28 endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act are present and whether they

29 would be adversely affected by continued operation of the nuclear plant during the license

30 renewal term. The presence of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the Ginna

31 site is discussed in Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 of this draft SEIS.

32

33 Consultation with the FWS was initiated by RG&E in January 2002 with a letter requesting

34 information about the presence of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the Ginna

35 (RG&E 2002d). The FWS responded on February 25, 2002, stating that except for occasional

36 transient individuals, no listed, proposed, or candidate species were likely to occur in the site

37 vicinity and that no biological assessment or further consultation under Section 7 was required

38 (FWS 2002; ESA 1972). Staff analysis of data provided by the applicant and/or obtained from

39 the NYSDEC (NYSDEC 2003b), and surveys of the Ginna site and surrounding environments

40 confirmed the FWS conclusions.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The staff has reviewed the available information including that provided by the applicant, FWS,

2 NYSDEC, the scoping process, and other public information sources. Based on this review and

3 its independent analysis, the staff’s preliminary conclusion is that continued operation of the

4 plant and continued operation and maintenance of the transmission lines and right-of-way under

5 license renewal is likely to have no effect on any Federally listed, threatened, or endangered

6 species within the terrestrial or aquatic environs in the immediate vicinity of the Ginna site or the

7 associated transmission lines. Further, the staff’s preliminary conclusion is that continued

8 operation of Ginna will not affect any New York State-listed terrestrial or aquatic species. 

9 Therefore, it is the staff’s preliminary determination that the impact on threatened or endangered

10 species of an additional 20 years of operation of the Ginna and of continued maintenance

11 activities of the transmission right-of-way would be SMALL.

12

13 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

14 continued operation of Ginna. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

15 considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not “significant”)

16 were considered. Based on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures in place at

17 Ginna provide mitigation for all impacts related to threatened or endangered species, and no

18 new mitigation measures are warranted.

19

20 4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information

21 on Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term

22

23 During the scoping period, comments were received from the State of New York and the FWS

24 related to shoreline erosion at the Ginna site. The issues raised are discussed in the following

25 section.

26

27 4.7.1 Shoreline Erosion

28

29 During the Ginna site audit, on November 5, 2002, the NRC staff met with representatives from

30 the NYSDEC. NYSDEC staff expressed a concern over the shoreline erosion rates occurring at

31 the Ginna site. In a December 11, 2002, letter providing the NRC staff with scoping comments,

32 NYSDEC again expressed its concern over shoreline erosion. In a January 6, 2003, letter the

33 FWS also commented on the issue of shoreline erosion at the site.

34

35 To protect the shoreline immediately in front of the Ginna site, a revetment composed of riprap

36 or large stones was installed during plant construction. The length of the protected shoreline

37 has been extended during the plant operating period. Shoreline erosion is occurring both east

38 and west of the portion of the shoreline not protected by the revetment. A revetment may

39 redirect a portion of the erosional forces onto adjacent unprotected portions of the shoreline,
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-38 June 2003

1 thereby increasing erosion on the shoreline unprotected by the revetment. Shoreline erosion is

2 a natural phenomenon, an endless redistribution process that continually alters the shoreline. 

3 Shorelines have always been areas of continuous and sometimes dramatic change. The force

4 of waves, seiches, and ice movement on the shoreline of Lake Ontario all contribute to shoreline

5 erosion. A variety of options are available to protect against continued shoreline erosion,

6 including: bulkheads, revetments, breakwaters, groins, vegetation, and drainage controls. The

7 NYSDEC has estimated the average annual erosion rate of the unprotected bluffs in the vicinity

8 of Ginna to be between 0.3 and 0.5 m (1.0 and 1.5 ft) per year. Based on these estimates of

9 shoreline erosion rates, the additional 20 years to the end of the proposed renewal period an

10 additional 6 to 10 m (20 to 35 ft) of shoreline loss can be expected. Some portion of this erosion

11 may be attributable to enhanced erosion resulting from presence of the revetment. This flank

12 erosion, that is, erosion at the edges of the revetment, is localized and not quantitatively

13 significant. The staff believes that any additional shoreline erosion that might occur at the east

14 and west terminus of the revetment will not result in significant additional shoreline erosion a

15 short distance from the riprap due to the localized nature of the flank erosion.

16

17 NYSDEC also expressed concern that the shoreline erosion could adversely affect Lake Ontario

18 water quality in the vicinity of the site. Again, the erosion is an incremental quantity and is not

19 expected to be detectable or destabilizing. Any erosion at the flanks of the revetment is

20 expected to quickly be redistributed within the lake by natural processes. The staff believes that

21 the amount of material that could be resuspended due to the increased erosion at the east and

22 west terminus of the revetment would be inconsequential relative to the volume of water and

23 would have no measurable impact on local water quality.

24

25 At the request of NYSDEC, RG&E has recently performed a survey of the shoreline in the

26 vicinity of the Ginna site. This survey will help to understand the degree to which the revetment

27 that RG&E has constructed has altered the natural erosion process. If additional surveys

28 indicate that the natural erosion rate has been significantly altered, the State of New York may

29 require that some mitigation measures be taken and other permits or permit modifications may

30 be required. Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean

31 Water Act of 1977, as amended, provides the authority to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to

32 permit construction lakeward of the high-water mark on the banks of Lake Ontario. Such a

33 permit would be required for most mitigation options, such as changes to the revetment.

34

35 The staff has reviewed the information about shoreline erosion and the design of the revetment

36 at Ginna. The staff preliminarily concludes that the comments made by the NYSDEC do not

37 represent information that would call into question the Commission’s conclusions regarding

38 GEIS Category 1 issues that impacts on aquatic and terrestrial resources and land use from

39 continued operation of Ginna are SMALL and that additional plant-specific mitigation measures

40 are not warranted at this time.

41
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 4.8 Cumulative Impacts of Operations During the Renewal

2 Term

3

4 The staff considered potential cumulative impacts during the evaluation of information applicable

5 to each of the potential impacts of operations during the renewal term identified within the GEIS. 

6 For the purposes of this analysis past actions were those related to the resources at the time of

7 the plant licensing and construction, present actions are those related to the resources at the

8 time of current operation of the power plant, and future actions are considered to be those that

9 are reasonably foreseeable through the end of plant operation. Therefore, the analysis

10 considers potential impacts through the end of the current license term, as well as the 20-year

11 renewal license term. The geographical area over which past, present, and future actions that

12 could contribute to cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of action considered, and is

13 described below for each impact area.

14

15 The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Section 4.0, are combined with other past,

16 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at Ginna regardless of what agency (Federal

17 or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts are defined

18 as “cumulative” in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor but collectively significant

19 actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an impact that may be SMALL by

20 itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE impact when considered in combination with the

21 impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining

22 or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it contributes to or

23 accelerates the overall resource decline. 

24

25 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the Plant Cooling System

26

27 For the purposes of this analysis, the geographic area considered is Lake Ontario. As described

28 in Section 4.1, the staff found no new and significant information indicating that the conclusions

29 regarding any of the cooling system-related Category 1 issues as related to Ginna are

30 inconsistent with the conclusions in the GEIS. Additionally, the staff determined that none of the

31 cooling system-related Category 2 issues were likely to have greater than a SMALL impact on

32 local water quality or aquatic resources. 

33

34 In general, the overall water quality of Lake Ontario and the status of the fishery and other

35 aquatic resources have greatly improved since Ginna started operations. Therefore, there is no

36 basis to conclude that the SMALL impacts of Ginna operations, including entrainment of fish and

37 shellfish, impingement of fish and shellfish, heat shock, or any of the cooling system-related

38 Category 1 issues are contributing to an overall decline in water quality or in the status of the

39 fishery or other aquatic resources.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeont/summary.html, accessed on June 4, 2002.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-40 June 2003

1 During 1987, the governments of Canada and the United States made a commitment, as part of

2 the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, to develop a Lakewide Management Plan for each of

3 the five Great Lakes. According to the 1987 Agreement, the plans embody a systematic and

4 comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial uses in the lakes. 

5 The plans address sources of lake-wide critical pollutants. The plans are coordinated with other

6 efforts that are best suited to address issues of local concern. In addition, the plans utilize

7 linkages to other natural resource management activities, such as the development of Lake

8 Ontario fish community objectives by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Lake Ontario

9 Committee of fisheries managers. The plans address impairments found in open waters of the

10 lake and nearshore areas. Tributaries, including the Niagara River, are treated as inputs to the

lake. The St. Lawrence River is treated as an output from the lake.(a) 11 Given the lake-wide

12 management plans in place to protect Lake Ontario and its environs, the staff concludes that

13 potential cumulative effects will be carefully assessed and managed over time. 

14

15 As described in Section 2.2.8.2, local water utilities withdraw potable water primarily from five

16 surface water sources, including Lake Ontario. The average daily water demand by the

17 communities in the area is about 378 million liters (100 million gallons). To meet current

18 demand and anticipated future growth, the Ontario Water District plans to increase the size of its

19 intake pipes. This expansion will represent a minor increase over current surface water

20 withdrawals, and will be regulated and controlled by New York State and other governmental

21 agencies. 

22

23 The staff, while preparing this assessment, assumed that other industrial, commercial, or public

24 installations will be located in the general vicinity of Ginna prior to the end of Ginna operation. 

25 The intake of water from, and the discharge of water to Lake Ontario for these facilities would be

26 regulated by the NYSDEC and other agencies, just as the Ginna plant is presently regulated. 

27 The intake and discharge limits for each installation are set considering the overall or cumulative

28 impact of all of the other regulated activities in the area. Therefore, the staff concludes that the

29 potential cumulative impacts of continued operation of Ginna will be SMALL, and that no

30 additional mitigation measures are warranted.

31

32 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of the

33 Transmission Lines

34

35 The continued operation of the Ginna electrical transmission facilities was evaluated to

36 determine if there is the potential for interactions with other past, present, and future actions that

37 could result in adverse cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources such as wildlife populations,

38 and the size and distribution of habitat areas; aquatic resources such as wetlands and
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 floodplains; and both the acute and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. For the purposes

2 of this analysis, the geographic area that encompasses the past, present and foreseeable future

3 actions that could contribute to adverse cumulative effects is the area within 80 km (50 mi) of the

4 Ginna site, as depicted in Figure 2-1.

5

6 As described in Section 4.2, the staff found no new and significant information indicating that the

7 conclusions regarding any of the transmission line-related Category 1 issues as related to Ginna

8 are inconsistent with the conclusions within the GEIS. The applicant follows right-of-way

9 management procedures (RG&E 1995) over all of its rights-of-way that are protective of wildlife

10 and habitat resources, including floodplains and wetlands. There are no State or Federally

11 regulated wetlands at the Ginna site or within the transmission line right-of-way connecting

12 Ginna to the power grid. Therefore, continued operation and maintenance of this right-of-way is

13 not likely to contribute to a regional decline in wetland or floodplain resources. The maintenance

14 procedures ensure minimal disturbance to wildlife and in many ways improve the habitat within

15 the rights-of-way relative to many of the surrounding land-uses. 

16

17 The staff determined that the electric-field-induced currents from the Ginna transmission lines

18 are well below the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) recommendations for preventing

19 electric shock from induced currents. Therefore, the Ginna transmission lines do not detectably

20 affect the overall potential for electric shock from induced currents within the analysis area. With

21 respect to chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, although the staff considers the GEIS finding

22 of “not applicable” to be appropriate in regard to Ginna, the Ginna transmission lines are not

23 likely to detectably contribute to the regional exposure to extremely low frequency24 electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF). The Ginna transmission lines pass through a sparsely

25 populated, rural area with very few residences or business close enough to the lines to have

26 detectable ELF-EMF.

27

28 Therefore, the staff has determined that the cumulative impacts of the continued operation of the

29 Ginna transmission lines will be SMALL, and that no additional mitigation is warranted.

30

31 4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts

32

33 The radiological exposure limits for protection of the public and for occupational exposures have

34 been developed assuming long-term exposures, and therefore incorporate cumulative impacts. 

35 As described in Section 2.2.7, the public and occupational doses resulting from Ginna are well

36 below regulatory limits, and as described in Section 4.3, the impacts of these exposures are

37 SMALL. For the purposes of this analysis, the geographical area is the area included within a

38 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Ginna Site (Figure 2-1). The NRC would regulate any reasonably

39 foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of Ginna that could contribute to cumulative radiological

40 impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-42 June 2003

1 Therefore, the staff determined that the cumulative radiological impacts of continued operation

2 of Ginna will be SMALL, and that additional mitigation is not warranted.

3

4 4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts

5

6 Much of the analyses of socioeconomic impacts presented in Section 4.4 of this SEIS already

7 incorporate cumulative impact analysis because the metrics used for quantification only make

8 sense when placed in the total or cumulative context. For instance, the impact of the total

9 number of additional housing units that may be needed can only be evaluated with respect to the

10 total number that will be available in the impacted area. Therefore, the geographical area of the

11 cumulative analysis varies depending on the particular impact considered, and may depend on

12 specific boundaries, such as taxation jurisdictions or may be distance related, as in the case of

13 Environmental Justice. 

14

15 The continued operation of Ginna is not likely to add to any cumulative socioeconomic impacts

16 beyond those already evaluated in Sections 4.4. In other words, the impacts of issues such as

17 transportation or offsite land-use are likely to be non-detectable beyond the regions previously

18 evaluated and will quickly decrease with increasing distance from the site. The staff determined

19 that the impacts on housing, public utilities, public services, and environmental justice would all

20 be SMALL. The staff determined that the impact on off-site land-use is SMALL because, even

21 though Ginna provides greater than 10% of the property tax revenue for the Town of Ontario and

22 the Wayne Central School District there are no refurbishment actions planned at Ginna. There

23 are no reasonably foreseeable scenarios that would alter these conclusions in regard to

24 cumulative impacts.

25

26 Related to historic resources, there is one structure eligible for the inclusion in the NRHP on the

27 Ginna site, and the transmission line is located near a historic district that is included on the

28 NRHP. The current management of the Ginna site has functioned to protect these properties

29 and the staff concluded that the impacts of license renewal would be SMALL. There is no

30 reason to believe that the continued operation and maintenance of the Ginna site and

31 transmission right-of-way would impact any properties beyond the site or right-of-way

32 boundaries, and therefore the contribution to a cumulative impact on historic resources would be

33 negligible. 

34

35 The Seneca Nation has determined that it is likely that the Ginna site was used in prehistoric

36 times, that it is culturally highly sensitive, and that the site has a high potential of including

37 traditional Native American cultural properties (Section 4.4.5). These findings probably also

38 apply to much of the Lake Ontario shoreline to the east and west of the Ginna site and it is

39 reasonable to expect that these activities could impact shoreline areas (e.g., a Toronto

40 company, Lake Ontario Fast Ferry Corp., is proposing daily passenger- and car-ferry service
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 between Rochester, New York and Toronto, Ontario.). Therefore, the increased development of

2 the shoreline along the southern shore of Lake Ontario may have a cumulative adverse effect on

3 these Native American cultural properties. However, because there are no plans for

4 refurbishment or other major changes at the Ginna site, the land and shoreline within the Ginna

5 boundaries is protected from further development or adverse impacts, at least through the

6 period of decommissioning.

7

8 Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that continued operation of Ginna is not

9 likely to make a detectable contribution to the cumulative effects associated with any of the

10 socioeconomic issues discussed in Section 4.4, and therefore, the cumulative impacts will be

11 SMALL and no additional mitigation measures are warranted.

12

13 4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality

14

There are no groundwater withdrawals at Ginna, and RG&E imports less than 4 m3 15 /min

16 (100 gpm) of potable water from local utilities for plant use. As noted previously, surface water

17 is the primary source of potable water for local water utilities. The impact of current water usage

18 has been determined in Section 4.5 to be SMALL. Because there are no groundwater

19 withdrawals at Ginna and there are none anticipated in the future, the Ginna site is not causing a

20 detectable change in the regional groundwater usage, and therefore the cumulative impact is

21 SMALL and no mitigation measures are warranted.

22

23 4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species

24

25 The geographic area considered in the analysis of potential cumulative impacts to threatened or

26 endangered species includes Wayne County and the waters of Lake Ontario near Wayne

27 County. As discussed in Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6, there are several threatened or endangered

28 species that occur within this area. However, the staff determined in Section 4.6, that continued

29 operation of Ginna would have no effect on any of these species, primarily because none are

30 known to occur near the Ginna site or its transmission line right-of-way. Therefore, the

31 continued operation of Ginna will not contribute to a regional cumulative impact on these

32 species, regardless of whether or not other actions occur that could have adverse impacts. 

33 There are no species currently considered to be candidates or proposed for listing as threatened

34 or endangered known to occur in the vicinity of Ginna. Also, it is unlikely that any listed species

35 will increase its known range to an extent that it would become adversely affected by continued

36 plant operation.

37

38 Therefore, the staff has determined that the cumulative impacts to threatened or endangered

39 species due to continued operation of the Ginna site and associated transmission line will be

40 SMALL, and that additional mitigation measures would not be warranted. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-44 June 2003

1 4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the

2 Renewal Term

3

4 RG&E and the staff discovered no new and significant information related to any of the

5 applicable Category 1 issues associated with Ginna operation during the renewal term. 

6 Therefore, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with the Category 1

7 issues are bounded by the impacts described in the GEIS. For each of the issues, the GEIS

8 concluded that the impacts would be SMALL and that additional plant-specific mitigation

9 measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

10

11 Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 11 Category 2 issues applicable to

12 Ginna operation during the renewal term and for environmental justice and chronic effects of

13 electromagnetic fields. For all 11 issues and environmental justice, the staff’s preliminary

14 conclusion is that the potential environmental impact of renewal-term operations of Ginna would

15 be of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS and that further

16 mitigation is not warranted. In addition, the staff determined that a consensus has not been

17 reached by appropriate Federal health agencies regarding chronic adverse effects from

18 electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no evaluation of this issue is required.

19

20 Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were

21 considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such

22 other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where Ginna license renewal impacts are deemed

23 to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative

24 impacts on potentially affected resources. 

25

26 4.10 References

27

28 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

29 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

30

31 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

32 Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties”

33

34 59 FR 7629. Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

35 Minority and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register. Vol. 59, No. 32. February 16, 1994.

36

37 Beitinger, T. L., W. A. Bennett, and R. W. McCawley. 2000. Temperature Tolerances of North

38 American Freshwater Fishes Exposed to Dynamic Changes in Temperature. Environmental

39 Biology of Fishes, 58(3):237-275.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Clean Water Act. 1977. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also known as the Federal Water Pollution

2 Control Act [FWPCA] of 1977).

3

4 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the

5 National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 

6 Accessed at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf on February 9, 2002.

7

8 Dean, J. M. 1973. The Response of Fish to a Modified Thermal Environment. In Chavin, W.,

9 ed. Responses of Fish to Environmental Changes. Charles. C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield,

10 Illinois.

11

12 Endangered Species Act (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et seq.

13

14 Fry, F. E. 1971. The Effect of Environmental Factors on the Physiology of Fish. In Hoar, W. S.,

15 and D. J. Randall, eds., Fish Physiology, Volume VI, Environmental Relations and Behavior. 

16 Academic Press, New York.

17

18 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). 1997. National Electrical Safety Code. 

19 New York.

20

21 Klumb, R. A., L. G. Rudstam, E. L. Mills, C. P. Schneider, and P. M. Sawyko. 2003. 

22 “Importance of Lake Ontario Embayments and Nearshore Habitats as Nurseries for Larval

23 Fishes with Emphasis on Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus).” Journal of Great Lakes Research,

24 29(1): 181-198.

25

26 Mitchell, K. and L. Maybee. 2002. “Comments on 67 FR 63171 - R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

27 Plant,” December 11, 2002, e-mail from Mitchell and Maybee (Seneca Nation of New York,

28 Irving, N.Y.) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

29

30 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

31

32 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. 16 USC 470, et seq.

33

34 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

35 Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

36 No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

37

38 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003a. “Application

39 ID#8-5434-00010/00003, SPDES Permit Modification Issuance, RG&E Ginna Nuclear Power

40 Plant, Ontario (T), Wayne (C).” Letter from K. A. Merchant (NYSDEC) to J. Widay (RG&E).

41 January 23, 2003.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 4-46 June 2003

1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003b. “Master Habitat

2 Database Report for Wayne County.” Letter from K. A. Merchant (NYSDEC) to R. Schaaf, NRC

3 (Washington, D.C.), February 26, 2003.

4

5 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003c. “Application

6 ID#8-5434-00010/00010, SPDES Permit – Department Initiated Modification, Addition of a

7 Thermal Study Associated with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operating License

8 Renewal, RG&E Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Ontario (T), Wayne (C).” Letter from K. Merchant

9 (NYSDEC) to J. Prill (RG&E), April 16, 2003.

10

11 River and Harbor Act of 1899. 33 USC 401, et seq.

12

13 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1977. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 316(a)

14 Demonstration Supplement, NPDES Permit No. 0070 0X2 2 000079 (NY 0000493). RG&E

15 Report No. BP-13-043. Rochester, New York.

16

17 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1995. Electric Transmission Right-Of-Way

18 Management Plan. Rochester, New York.

19

20 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002a. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

21 Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E – Environmental Report. Rochester,

22 New York.

23

24 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002b. Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation

25 Fish Impingement Program: 1997 through 2001 Analysis Report Ginna Nuclear Power Station. 

26 RG&E Report No. B-13-389. Rochester, New York.

27

28 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002c. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

29 Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix A – UFSAR Supplement. Rochester, 

30 New York.

31

32 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to

33 Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation. 

34 Docket No. 50-244, Washington, D.C.

35

36 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1991. 1990 Census-Population and Housing; Public Law 94-171

37 Data. Washington, D.C.

38

39 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. “Census 2000 Summary File I (SF-1) 100 Percent Data.”

40 Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet in January 2003.

41
Environmental Impacts of Operation

June 2003 4-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. “Glossary – Definition and Explanations – Decennial

2 Census Terms.” Accessed at http://landview.census.gov/dmd/www/advglossary.html on 

3 January 2003.

4

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Letter from D. A. Stilwell (FWS) to P. M. Sawyko

6 (RG&E). February 25, 2002.

7

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

9 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

10

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

12 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

13 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report.” 

14 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

15

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. ”Procedural Guidance for Preparing

17 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues.” Appendix D to NRR Office

18 Instruction LIC-203, June 21, 2001, Washington, D.C.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

June 2003 5-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

2

3

4 Environmental issues associated with postulated accidents were discussed in the Generic

5 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 6 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

7 analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional

8 mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a

9 Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of

10 the following criteria:

11

12 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

13 to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

14 specified plant or site characteristic.

15

16 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

17 impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

18 high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

19

20 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

21 and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

22 to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

23

24 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

25 required unless new and significant information is identified.

26

27 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

28 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

29

30 This chapter describes the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur

31 during the license-renewal term.

32

33 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents

34

35 Two classes of accidents are evaluated in the GEIS. These are design-basis accidents (DBA)

36 and severe accidents, as discussed in the following sections.

37

38
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 5-2 June 2003

1 5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents

2

3 To receive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval to operate a nuclear power

4 facility, an applicant for an initial operating license must submit a Safety Analysis Report (SAR)

5 as part of its application. The SAR presents the design criteria and design information for the

6 proposed reactor and comprehensive data on the proposed site. The SAR also discusses

7 various hypothetical accident situations and the safety features that are provided to prevent and

8 mitigate accidents. The staff reviews the application to determine whether the plant design

9 meets the Commission’s regulations and requirements and includes, in part, the nuclear plant

10 design and its anticipated response to an accident.

11

12 The DBAs are evaluated by both the licensee and the staff to ensure that the plant can

13 withstand normal accidents and abnormal transients and a broad spectrum of postulated

14 accidents without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. A number of these

15 postulated accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant but are evaluated to

16 establish the design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems of the facility. The

17 acceptance criteria for DBAs are described in 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 100.

18

19 The environmental impacts of DBAs are evaluated during the initial licensing process, and the

20 ability of the plant to withstand these accidents is demonstrated to be acceptable before

21 issuance of the operating license (OL). The results of these evaluations are found in this

22 section and in license documentation such as the applicant’s final safety analysis report

23 (FSAR), the staff’s safety evaluation report (SER), and the Final Environmental Statement

24 (FES). A licensee is required to maintain the acceptable design and performance criteria

25 throughout the life of the plant, including any extended-life operation. The consequences for

26 these events are evaluated for the hypothetical maximally exposed individual; as such, changes

27 in the plant environment will not affect these evaluations. Because of the requirements that

28 continuous acceptability of the consequences and aging management programs be in effect for

29 license renewal, the environmental impacts as calculated for DBAs should not differ significantly

30 from initial licensing assessments over the life of the plant, including the license renewal period. 

31 Accordingly, the design of the plant relative to DBAs during the extended period is considered

32 to remain acceptable and the environmental impacts of those accidents were not examined

33 further in the GEIS.

34

35 The Commission has determined that the environmental impacts of DBAs are of SMALL

36 significance for all plants because the plants were designed to successfully withstand these

37 accidents. Therefore, for the purposes of license renewal, design-basis events are designated

38 as a Category 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue,

39 applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), is listed in Table 5-1. The early

40 resolution of the DBAs makes them a part of the current licensing basis of the plant; the current
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

June 2003 5-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 licensing basis of the plant is to be maintained by the licensee under its current license and,

2 therefore, under the provisions of 10 CFR 54.30, is not subject to review under license renewal.

3

4 Table 5-1. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term

5

6 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

7 POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

8 Design-basis accidents (DBAs) 5.3.2; 5.5.1

9

10 Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

11

12 The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents

13 are of small significance for all plants.

14

15 In its Environmental Report (ER), Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) stated that

16 “no new information existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions”

17 (RG&E 2002). The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

18 independent review of the Ginna ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation

19 of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related

20 to this issue beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

21

22 5.1.2 Severe Accidents

23

24 Severe nuclear accidents are those that are more severe than DBAs because they could result

25 in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious offsite

26 consequences. In the GEIS, the staff assessed the impacts of severe accidents during the

27 license renewal period, using the results of existing analyses and site-specific information to

28 conservatively predict the environmental impacts of severe accidents for each plant during the

29 renewal period.

30

31 Severe accidents initiated by external phenomena such as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and

32 fires have not traditionally been discussed in quantitative terms in FESs and were not

33 considered specifically for the Ginna site in the GEIS (NRC 1996). However, in the GEIS, the

34 staff did evaluate existing impact assessments performed by the NRC and by the industry at

35 44 nuclear plants in the United States and concluded that the risk from beyond-design-basis

36 earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is SMALL. Additionally, the staff concluded that

37 the risks from other external events are adequately addressed by a generic consideration of

38 internally initiated severe accidents.

39
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 5-4 June 2003

1 Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

2

3 The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open

4 bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from

5 severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe

6 accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.

7

8 Therefore, the Commission has designated mitigation of severe accidents as a Category 2

9 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue, applicable to Ginna, is

10 listed in Table 5-2.

11

12 Table 5-2. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term

13

14 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

15 Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS

Sections

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

16 POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

17 Severe Accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2;

5.3.3.3; 5.3.3.4;

5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2

L 5.2

18

19 The staff has not identified any new and significant information with regard to the

20 consequences from severe accidents during its independent review of the Ginna ER, the staff’s

21 site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the

22 staff concludes that there are no impacts of severe accidents beyond those discussed in the

23 GEIS. However, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(L), the staff has reviewed severe

24 accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for Ginna. The results of its review are discussed in

25 Section 5.2.

26

27 5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

28

29 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that license renewal applicants consider alternatives to

30 mitigate severe accidents if the staff has not previously evaluated SAMAs for the applicant’s

31 plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or related supplement or in an environmental

32 assessment. The purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware,

33 procedures, and training) with the potential for improving severe accident safety performance

34 are identified and evaluated. SAMAs have not been previously considered for Ginna; therefore,

35 the remainder of Chapter 5 addresses those alternatives.

36
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

June 2003 5-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 5.2.1 Introduction

2

3 This section presents a summary of the SAMA evaluation for Ginna conducted by RG&E and

4 described in the ER (RG&E 2002) and of the NRC’s review of that evaluation. The details of

5 the review are described in the NRC staff evaluation that was prepared by the staff with

6 contract assistance from Information Systems Laboratories, Inc. The entire evaluation is

7 presented in Appendix G.

8

9 The SAMA evaluation for Ginna was a four step process. In the first step, RG&E quantified the

10 level of risk associated with potential reactor accidents using the plant-specific probabilistic

11 safety assessment (PSA) and other risk models.

12

13 The second step was the examination of the major risk contributors to identify areas where

14 plant improvements might have the greatest chance to reduce risk. Then possible ways of

15 reducing those risks were identified. Common ways of reducing risk are changes to

16 components, systems, procedures, and training. RG&E identified approximately 200 potential

17 SAMAs. Using a set of screening criteria, the number of SAMAs requiring further consideration

18 was reduced to 20. Further refinement and review of these 20 SAMAs eliminated 12 from

19 further consideration.

20

21 In the third step, the benefits and costs for the remaining eight candidate SAMAs were

22 estimated. Estimates were made of how much each proposed SAMA could reduce risk. Those

23 estimates were developed in terms of dollars in accordance with NRC guidance for performing

24 regulatory analyses (NRC 1997). The costs of implementing the proposed SAMAs were also

25 estimated.

26

27 Finally in the fourth step, the costs and benefits of each of the eight final SAMAs were

28 compared to determine whether the SAMA was cost-beneficial, meaning the benefits of the

29 SAMA were greater than the costs (a positive cost-benefit). In the final analysis, two of these

30 SAMAs were determined to be cost-beneficial for Ginna. 

31

32 Each of these four steps is discussed in more detail in the sections that follow.

33

34 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for Ginna

35

36 RG&E submitted an assessment of SAMAs for Ginna as part of the ER (RG&E 2002) and

37 provided a revised assessment in response to staff information requests (RG&E 2003). This

38 assessment was based on the most recent Ginna PSA (including the Level 1 and 2 analyses), a

39 plant-specific offsite consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident

40 Consequence Code System 2 (MACCS2) (essentially a Level 3 PSA model), and the Ginna

41 Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) (RG&E 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 5-6 June 2003

1 The most recent PSA is a refinement of the plant-specific PSA presented in the Ginna

2 Individual Plant Examination (IPE) (RG&E 1994, 1997b, 1997c). The baseline core damage

frequency (CDF) for Ginna is approximately 4.0 x 10-5 3 per year, based on internally-initiated

4 events at power and at shutdown, and fire and internal flooding events at power. RG&E did not

5 include the contribution to CDF from seismic events in these estimates. RG&E concluded that

6 the existing IPEEE and Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) evaluations had adequately

7 identified potential plant improvements to address seismic events. The breakdown of CDF by

8 initiating event/accident class is summarized in Table 5-3. Fires, internal floods, shutdown

9 events, and steam generator tube ruptures are the dominant contributors to the CDF. 

10

11 Table 5-3. Core Damage Frequency for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Revision 4.2 of PSA)

12

13 Contributor CDF (per year)

Percent of Total

CDF

14 Internal Events – At Power

15 Transients 1.0 x 10-6 3

16 Station Blackout (SBO) 2.1 x 10-6 5

17 Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) 2.0 x 10-7 1

18 Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 6.0 x 10-6 15

19 Loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) <2 inches 2.6 x 10-6 6

20 LOCAs >2 inches 7.0 x 10-7 2

21 Interfacing system LOCA (ISLOCA) 2.5 x 10-7 1

22 Internal Events – Shutdown 6.8 x 10-6 17

23 Total CDF from internal events 2.0 x 10-5 50

24 External Events

25 Fire 1.1 x 10-5 28

26 Flood 8.8 x 10-6 22

27 Total CDF from external events 2.0 x 10-5 50

28 Total CDF 4.0 x 10-5 100

29

30 RG&E estimated the dose from all postulated accidents to the population within 80 km (50 mi)

31 of the Ginna site to be approximately 0.163 person-Sv (16.300 person-rem). The breakdown of

32 the population dose by containment release mode is summarized in Table 5-4. Bypass events
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

June 2003 5-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 (SGTR and interfacing system LOCA) and late containment failures dominate the population

2 dose.

3

4 Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode

5

6 Containment Release Mode

Population Dose

Person-Sv

Per Year

(Person-Rem

Per Year)

Percent

Contribution

SGTR(a) 7 0.063 6.300 39

8 ISLOCAs 0.044 4.400 27

9 Early containment failure 0.020 2.000 12

Late containment failure(b) 10 0.030 3.000 19

11 No containment failure 0.006 0.600 3

12 Total 0.163 16.300 100

13 (a) Includes thermally induced SGTR

14 (b) Includes contribution from shutdown events

15

16 The staff has reviewed RG&E’s data and evaluation methods and concludes that the quality of

17 the risk analyses is adequate to support an assessment of the risk reduction potential for the

18 candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and

19 offsite doses provided by RG&E.

20

21 5.2.3 Potential Design Improvements

22

23 Once the most risk significant parts of the plant design and operation were identified, RG&E

24 searched for ways to reduce those risks. To identify potential plant improvements, RG&E

25 reviewed improvements identified in the Ginna IPE and IPEEE processes, SAMA analyses

26 submitted for other nuclear power plants, and NRC and industry documents discussing

27 potential plant improvements. RG&E also reviewed the importance measures and dominant

28 cutsets of the Ginna PSA and considered insights provided by Ginna plant staff. RG&E

29 identified approximately 200 potential risk-reducing improvements to plant components,

30 systems, procedures, and training (SAMAs).

31

32 All but 20 of these SAMAs were removed from further consideration because (1) the SAMA was

33 not applicable at Ginna due to design differences, (2) the SAMA would involve major plant

34 design and/or structural changes that would clearly be well in excess of the maximum attainable

35 benefit, or (3) the SAMA would provide only minimal risk reduction. 

36

37 These 20 candidate SAMAs were further defined and then reviewed based on the following

38 considerations: (1) ability to implement the change at Ginna (i.e., assessment of design

39 challenges or physical limitations), (2) the risk reduction that would realistically be achieved,

40 and (3) whether implementation of the change would increase vulnerabilities in other areas. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 5-8 June 2003

1 Using this evaluation process, all but eight of the candidate SAMAs were removed from further

2 consideration. 

3 The staff reviewed the screening methods used by RG&E and their results and concluded that

4 they were systematic and comprehensive.

5

6 5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction Potential and Cost of Design Improvements

7

8 RG&E calculated the potential risk reduction for the remaining eight SAMAs. The potential

9 benefits were developed by adding the estimated present dollar value of the averted public

10 exposure, offsite property damage, occupational exposure, and onsite costs associated with

11 each SAMA. RG&E estimated the costs of implementing the eight remaining SAMAs through

12 application of engineering judgement and site-specific cost estimates.

13

14 The staff reviewed RG&E’s calculations of the potential risk reduction and concluded that they

15 are reasonable and conservative. Therefore, the staff based its estimates of averted risk for

16 the SAMAs on RG&E’s risk reduction estimates. The staff reviewed the cost estimates and

17 concluded that they are sufficient and appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation.

18

19 5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison

20

21 Based on the more detailed evaluations of potential risk reduction and cost discussed above,

22 RG&E determined that two of the eight remaining SAMAs were cost beneficial. RG&E

23 performed additional analyses to determine the impact of certain parameter choices such as

24 the discount rate on the calculations. RG&E also evaluated the impact on SAMA results if the

95th 25 - percentile values of the CDF were used in the cost-benefit analysis instead of the best26 estimate CDF values. These analyses did not result in identifying any additional cost-beneficial

27 SAMAs. Therefore, RG&E finally concluded that there were two cost-beneficial SAMAs.

28

29 The two SAMAs considered to be potentially cost beneficial include (1) obtaining a skid30 mounted, 480-V diesel generator that could be directly connected to one train of the safeguards

31 buses in the event of a failure of the two existing diesel generators; and (2) modifying

32 procedures to allow certain charging pumps to be manually aligned to an alternate power

33 source in the event of a control complex fire, or a fire that disables safeguards train B when the

34 train A charging pump is out of service or fails to run.

35

36 The staff reviewed calculation methods and logic arguments used by RG&E in the final cost37 benefit comparisons and agreed with their conclusion that two of the original approximately 200

38 SAMAs are cost beneficial.

39
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

June 2003 5-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 5.2.6 Conclusions

2

3 The staff reviewed the SAMA analysis provided by RG&E and concluded that the methods used

4 and the implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and

5 costs, the generally large negative net benefits, and the inherently small baseline risks support

6 the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by RG&E are reasonable and

7 sufficient for the license renewal submittal.

8

9 Based on its review of the RG&E SAMA analysis, the staff concludes that two of the candidate

10 SAMAs are cost-beneficial. This is based on conservative treatment of costs and benefits. 

11 This conclusion is consistent with the low residual level of risk indicated in the Ginna PSA and

12 the fact that Ginna has already implemented many plant improvements identified from the IPE

13 and IPEEE process. Although two SAMA candidates appear to be cost beneficial, they do not

14 relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. 

15 Therefore, they need not be implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR

16 Part 54. RG&E stated that it will consider implementation of these SAMAs through its current

17 plant change process.

18

19 5.3 References

20

21 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing

22 of Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

23

24 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

25 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

26

27 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

28 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

29

30 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

31 Criteria.” 

32

33 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1994. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to the

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20. March 15, 1994.

35

36 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997a. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

37 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: IPEEE Seismic Evaluation Report

38 (prepared by Stevenson & Associates), Rochester Gas and Electric, Robert E. Ginna Station,

39 Attachment to Letter. January 31, 1997.

40
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 5-10 June 2003

1 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997b. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

2 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20, Level 1 Probabilistic

3 Safety Assessment (PSA). January 15, 1997.

4

5 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997c. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

6 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20, Level 2 Probabilistic

7 Safety Assessment. August 30, 1997.

8

9 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998a. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

10 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Ginna Station Fire IPEEE. June 30, 1998.

11

12 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998b. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

13 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: IPEEE High Winds and Transportation

14 Report. August 19, 1998.

15 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998c. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

16 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Supplement to High Winds and

17 Transportation Report. September 8, 1998.

18

19 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

20 Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E – Environmental Report. Rochester,

21 New York.

22

23 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2003. Letter from R. C. Mecredy, RG&E, to

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to December 26, 2002, Request for

25 Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives. February 28, 2003.

26

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

28 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

29

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation

31 Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C.

32

33 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

34 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1

35 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

36 Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

37
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

June 2003 6-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium

2 Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

3

4

5 Environmental issues associated with the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management were

6 discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 7 The GEIS includes a

8 determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants

9 and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a

10 Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those

11 that meet all of the following criteria:

12

13 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

14 to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

15 specified plant or site characteristics.

16

17 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

18 impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

19 high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

20

21 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

22 and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

23 to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

24

25 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

26 required unless new and significant information is identified.

27

28 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and

29 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

30

31 This chapter addresses the issues that are related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

32 management during the license renewal term that are listed in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

33 Appendix B, and are applicable to the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna). The generic

34 potential impacts of the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium

35 fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes are described in detail in the GEIS,

36 based in part on the generic impacts provided in 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table S-3, "Table of

37 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," and in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S-4, "Environmental
Fuel Cycle

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 6-2 June 2003

1 Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear

2 Power Reactor." The GEIS also addresses the impacts from radon-222 and technetium-99. 

3 There are no Category 2 issues for the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management.

4

5 6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle

6

7 Category 1 issues from 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable

8 to Ginna from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are listed in Table 6-1.

9

10 Table 6-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste

11 Management During the License Renewal Term

12

13 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

14 URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

15 Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other

16 than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste)

6.1; 6.2.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.2.3; 6.2.3; 6.2.4;

6.6

17 Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4, 6.6

18 Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level waste) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4, 6.6

19 Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 6.1; 6.2.2.6; 6.2.2.7; 6.2.2.8; 6.2.2.9;

6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

20 Low-level waste storage and disposal 6.1; 6.2.2.2; 6.4.2; 6.4.3; 6.4.3.1;

6.4.3.2; 6.4.3.3; 6.4.4; 6.4.4.1; 6.4.4.2;

6.4.4.3; 6.4.4.4; 6.4.4.5; 6.4.4.5.1;

6.4.4.5.2; 6.4.4.5.3; 6.4.4.5.4; 6.4.4.6,

6.6

21 Mixed waste storage and disposal 6.4.5.1; 6.4.5.2; 6.4.5.3; 6.4.5.4;

6.4.5.5; 6.4.5.6; 6.4.5.6.1; 6.4.5.6.2;

6.4.5.6.3; 6.4.5.6.4, 6.6

22 Onsite spent fuel 6.1; 6.4.6; 6.4.6.1; 6.4.6.2; 6.4.6.3;

6.4.6.4; 6.4.6.5; 6.4.6.6; 6.4.6.7; 6.6

23 Nonradiological waste 6.1; 6.5; 6.5.1; 6.5.2; 6.5.3; 6.6

24 Transportation 6.1; 6.3.1; 6.3.2.3; 6.3.3; 6.3.4; 6.6,

Addendum 1

25

26
Fuel Cycle

June 2003 6-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 In the Ginna Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002), Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation

2 (RG&E) stated that “no new information existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS

3 conclusions.” The staff has not identified any new and significant information on this issue

4 during its independent review of the Ginna ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process,

5 discussions with other agencies, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff

6 concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the

7 GEIS. For all of those GEIS issues, the staff concluded that the impacts are SMALL except for

8 collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent

9 fuel disposal, as discussed below, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be

10 sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

11

12 A brief description of the staff review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR Part 51,

13 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows.

14

15  Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel

16 and high-level waste). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

17

18 Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the

19 Commission in Table S-3 of this part [10 CFR 51.51(b)]. Based on information in

20 the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases

21 including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small.

22

23 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

24 concludes that there are no offsite radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the

25 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

26

27  Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects). Based on information in the GEIS, the

28 Commission found that

29

30 The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the

31 fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be

32 about 14,800 person rem [148 person Sv], or 12 cancer fatalities, for each

33 additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the

34 contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses

35 summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be

36 extended to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well

37 as doses outside the U.S. The result of such a calculation would be thousands

38 of cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny

39 doses have some statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be

40 mitigated (for example no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that

41 these doses projected over thousands of years are meaningful. However, these

42 assumptions are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the
Fuel Cycle

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 6-4 June 2003

1 possibility that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For

2 perspective, the doses are very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even

3 smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same populations.

4

5 Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

6 NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] implications of these matters should

7 be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case

8 [NEPA 1969]. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission

9 concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be

10 sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of

11 extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly,

12 while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the

13 collective effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.

14

15 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

16 concludes that there are no offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) from the uranium

17 fuel cycle during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

18

19  Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level waste disposal). Based on

20 information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

21

22 For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle,

23 there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the

24 current candidate repository site. However, if we assume that limits are

25 developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

26 report, "Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards," and that in accordance

27 with the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository

28 can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits,

29 peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem [1 mSv] per year or

30 less. However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these

31 assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits

32 are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or

33 reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible

34 pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem

35 [1 mSv] per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual

36 doses, but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and 
Fuel Cycle

June 2003 6-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem

2 [1 mSv] per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem [1 mSv] annual

dose limit is about 3 × 10-3 3 .

4

5 Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more

6 problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously

7 compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the

8 Department of Energy in the "Final Environmental Impact Statement: Management

9 of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste," October 1980 [DOE 1980]. The

10 evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maximum

11 individual and to the regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a

12 reference repository in the year of closure, after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years,

13 and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently, the NRC and other federal agencies

14 have expended considerable effort to develop models for the design and for the

15 licensing of a high level waste repository, especially for the candidate repository at

16 Yucca Mountain. More meaningful estimates of doses to population may be

17 possible in the future as more is understood about the performance of the proposed

18 Yucca Mountain repository. Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty,

19 especially with respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The

20 standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The

21 relationship of potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and

22 cumulative population impacts has not been determined, although the report

23 articulates the view that protection of individuals will adequately protect the

24 population for a repository at Yucca Mountain. However, EPA's [Environmental

25 Protection Agency] generic repository standards in 40 CFR Part 191 generally

26 provide an indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to population that

27 could result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the

28 ultimate standards will be within the range of standards now under consideration. 

29 The standards in 40 CFR Part 191 protect the population by imposing "containment

30 requirements" that limit the cumulative amount of radioactive material released over

31 10,000 years. Reporting performance standards that will be required by EPA are

32 expected to result in releases and associated health consequences in the range

33 between 10 and 100 premature cancer deaths with an upper limit of

34 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM)

35 repository. 

36

37 Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

38 NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to

39 repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into

40 account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these

41 impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant,

42 that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. 
Fuel Cycle

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 6-6 June 2003

1 Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for

2 the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is considered

3 Category 1.

4

5 Since the GEIS was originally issued in 1996, the EPA has published radiation protection

6 standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, at 40 CFR Part 197, “Public Health and

7 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” on June 13,

8 2001 (66 FR 32132). The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 USC 10101) directed that the NRC

9 adopt these standards into its regulations for reviewing and licensing the repository. The

10 NRC published its regulations at 10 CFR Part 63, “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive

11 Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” on November 2, 2001

12 (66 FR 55792). These regulations include the following requirements: (1) 0.15 mSv/year

13 (15.00 mrem/year) dose limit for members of the public during the storage period prior to

14 repository closure; (2) 0.15 mSv/year (15.00 mrem/year) dose limit for the reasonably

15 maximally exposed individual for 10,000 years following disposal; (3) 0.15.00 mSv/year

16 (15.00 mrem/year) dose limit for the reasonably maximally exposed individual as a result of

17 a human intrusion at or before 10,000 years after disposal; and (4) a groundwater protection

18 standard that states for 10,000 years of undisturbed performance after disposal,

19 radioactivity in a representative volume of groundwater will not exceed (a) 0.19 Bq/L (5.00

20 pCi/L) (radium-226 and radium-228), (b) 0.56 Bq/L (15 pCi/L) (gross alpha activity), and (c)

21 0.04 mSv/year (4.00 mrem/year) to the whole body or any organ (from combined beta- and

22 photon-emitting radionuclides).

23

24 On February 15, 2002, subsequent to receipt of a recommendation by Secretary Abraham,

25 U.S. Department of Energy, the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the

26 development of a repository for the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

27 nuclear waste.

28

29 This change in regulatory status does not cause the staff to change its position with respect

30 to the impact of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal. The staff still considers the

31 Category 1 classification in the GEIS appropriate.

32

33 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

34 concludes that there are no offsite radiological impacts related to spent fuel and high-level

35 waste disposal during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

36
Fuel Cycle

June 2003 6-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. Based on information in the GEIS,

2 the Commission found that

3

4 The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal

5 of an operating license for any plant are found to be SMALL.

6

7 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

8 concludes that there are no nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the

9 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

10

11  Low-level waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the

12 Commission found that

13

14 The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public

15 doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the

16 environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The

17 maximum additional on-site land that may be required for low-level waste

18 storage during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts will be

19 small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The

20 radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of

21 low-level waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition,

22 the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient

23 low-level waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for

24 facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning

25 requirements.

26

27 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

28 concludes that there are no impacts of low-level waste storage and disposal associated with

29 the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

30

31  Mixed waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

32 found that

33

34 The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are

35 in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and

36 exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

37 License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and

38 the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and non39 radiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from

40 any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission

41 concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste
Fuel Cycle

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 6-8 June 2003

1 disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be

2 decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.

3

4 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

5 concludes that there are no impacts of mixed waste storage and disposal associated with

6 the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

7

8  Onsite spent fuel. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

9

10 The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of

11 operation can be safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects

12 through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored

13 retrievable storage is not available.

14

15 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

16 concludes that there are no impacts of onsite spent fuel associated with license renewal

17 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

18

19  Nonradiological waste. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

20

21 No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities

22 and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at

23 all plants.

24

25 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

26 concludes that there are no nonradiological waste impacts during the renewal term beyond

27 those discussed in the GEIS.

28

29  Transportation. Based on information contained in the GEIS, the Commission found

30 that

31

32 The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with

33 average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by NRC up to

34 62,000 MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to

35 a single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent

36 with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary

37 Table S-4 – Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and

38 from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel enrichment or

39 burnup conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the

40 implications for the environmental impact values reported in 51.52.
Fuel Cycle

June 2003 6-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Ginna meets the fuel-enrichment and burnup conditions set forth in Addendum 1 to the

2 GEIS. The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

3 concludes that there are no impacts of transportation associated with license renewal

4 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

5

6 6.2 References

7

8 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

9 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10

11 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

12 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

13

14 10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 63, “Disposal of High15 Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.”

16

17 40 CFR Part 191. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 191,

18 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear

19 Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste.”

20

21 40 CFR Part 197. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 197,

22 “Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain,

23 Nevada.”

24

25 Energy Policy Act of 1992. 42 USC 10101, et seq.

26

27 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

28

29 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

30 Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E – Environmental Report. Rochester,

31 New York.

32

33 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

34 Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOE/EIS 00046-G, Vols. 1-3,

35 Washington, D.C.

36

37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. “Part 197 – Public Health and

38 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” 66 FR 32132.

39

40 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

41 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.
Fuel Cycle

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 6-10 June 2003

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1

3 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

4 Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

5

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. “Part 63 – Disposal of High-Level

7 Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” 66 FR 55792. 

8 November 2, 2001.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

June 2003 7-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

2

3

4 Environmental issues associated with decommissioning, which result from continued plant

5 operation during the renewal term, are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact

6 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2

(NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 7 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the analysis of the

8 environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures

9 would be warranted. Issues were then assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As

10 set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

11

12 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

13 to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

14 specified plant or site characteristics.

15

16 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

17 impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high18 level waste and spent fuel disposal).

19

20 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

21 and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

22 to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

23

24 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

25 required unless new and significant information is identified.

26

27 Category 2 issues are those that did not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and

28 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required. No Category 2 issues are

29 related to decommissioning the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna).

30

31 Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable

32 to Ginna decommissioning following the renewal term are listed in Table 7-1. In its

33 Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002), Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E)

34 stated “no new information exists for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions.” 

35 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

36 the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other

37 agencies, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

38 impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these issues,
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 7-2 June 2003

1 the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation

2 measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

3

4 Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Decommissioning of R.E. Ginna Nuclear

5 Power Plant Following the Renewal Term

6

7 ISSUE – 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

8 DECOMMISSIONING

9 Radiation Doses 7.3.1; 7.4

10 Waste Management 7.3.2; 7.4

11 Air Quality 7.3.3; 7.4

12 Water Quality 7.3.4; 7.4

13 Ecological Resources 7.3.5; 7.4

14 Socioeconomic Impacts 7.3.7; 7.4

15

16 A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR

17 Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of the issues follows:

18

19  Radiation doses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

20

21 Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless

22 of which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase

23 no more than 1 man-rem [0.01 person-Sv] caused by buildup of long-lived

24 radionuclides during the license renewal term.

25

26 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

27 concludes that there are no radiation doses associated with decommissioning following

28 license renewal beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

29

30  Waste management. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

31

32 Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate

33 no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in

34 the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected.

35

36 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

37 concludes that there are no impacts of solid waste associated with decommissioning

38 following the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

June 2003 7-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  Air quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

2

3 Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at

4 the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term.

5

6 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

7 concludes that there are no impacts of license renewal on air quality during

8 decommissioning beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

9

10  Water quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

11

12 The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no

13 greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period

14 or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available

15 to avoid such impacts.

16

17 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

18 concludes that there are no impacts of license renewal on water quality during

19 decommissioning beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

20

21  Ecological Resources. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

22

23 Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year

24 license renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts.

25

26 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

27 concludes that there are no impacts of license renewal on ecological resources during

28 decommissioning beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

29

30  Socioeconomic Impacts. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

31

32 Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The

33 impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a

34 20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and

35 economic growth.

36

37 The staff has not identified any new and significant information. Therefore, the staff

38 concludes that there are no impacts of license renewal on the socioeconomic impacts of

39 decommissioning beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

40
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 7-4 June 2003

1 7.1 References

2

3 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

4 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

5

6 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

7 Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E – Environmental Report. Rochester,

8 New York.

9

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

11 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

12

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

14 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

15 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

16 Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

17
1 (a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

2 all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

June 2003 8-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

2

3

4 This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts associated with denying the renewal

5 of the operating license (OL) (i.e., the no-action alternative); the potential environmental

6 impacts from electric generating sources other than the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

7 (Ginna); the possibility of purchasing electric power from other sources to replace power

8 generated by Ginna and the associated environmental impacts; the potential environmental

9 impacts from a combination of generating and conservation measures; and other generation

10 alternatives that were deemed unsuitable for replacement of power generated by Ginna. The

11 environmental impacts are evaluated using the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC)

12 three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed using

13 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1

14 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

15

16 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

17 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

18

19 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

20 destabilize important attributes of the resource.

21

22 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

23 important attributes of the resource.

24

25 The impact categories evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the Generic

26 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) 27 with the additional impact category of environmental

28 justice.

29

30 8.1 No-Action Alternative

31

32 The NRC’s regulations implementing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 specify

33 that the no-action alternative be discussed in an NRC EIS (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

34 Appendix A[4]). For license renewal, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the

35 NRC would not renew the Ginna OL and RG&E would then cease operations at the plant and

36 initiate the decommissioning of the plant.

37

38
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-2 June 2003

1 RG&E will be required to comply with NRC decommissioning requirements whether or not the

2 OL is renewed. If the Ginna OL is renewed, decommissioning activities will not be avoided but

3 may be postponed for up to an additional 20 years. If the OL is not renewed, RG&E would

4 conduct decommissioning activities according to the requirements in 10 CFR 50.82.

5

6 The environmental impacts associated with decommissioning following a license renewal period

7 of up to 20 years or following the no-action alternative would be bounded by the discussion of

8 impacts in Chapter 7 of the relicensing GEIS, (NRC 1999), Chapter 7 of this supplemental

9 environmental impact statement (SEIS), and the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement

10 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The

11 impacts of decommissioning after 60 years of operation are not expected to be significantly

12 different from those occurring after 40 years of operation.

13

14 The no-action alternative, that is, ceasing operations after the current license expires, would

15 result in a net reduction in power production. The power not generated by Ginna during the

16 license renewal term would likely be replaced by (1) demand-side management (DSM) and

17 energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other electricity providers, (3) generating

18 alternatives other than Ginna, or (4) some combination of these options. This replacement

19 power would produce additional environmental impacts as discussed in Section 8.2.

20

21 The staff’s assessments of the impacts of the no-action alternative on each impact category are

22 provided in the following sections. The assessment of each impact category is supplemented

23 with information about the potential impacts of decommissioning.

24

25  Land Use

26

27 Cessation of plant operations would result in a reduced use of the Ginna site. Land use on and

28 off the site will be reduced and eventually eliminated resulting from plant operations. During

29 decommissioning, some temporary changes in onsite land use could occur. These changes

30 may include additional or expanded staging and laydown areas or construction of temporary

31 buildings and parking areas. No offsite land-use changes are expected as a result of

32 decommissioning. After cessation of operations and following decommissioning, the Ginna site

33 would likely be retained by RG&E for other corporate purposes. Eventual sale or transfer of the

34 site, however, could result in changes to land use. Notwithstanding this possibility, the impacts

35 of the no-action alternative and decommissioning on land use are considered SMALL. 

36

37  Ecology

38

39 Impacts on aquatic ecology should be reduced immediately following cessation of plant

40 operations. Water withdrawal and discharge of heated water will end when the reactor is shut

41 down. Decommissioning activities may have some short-term impacts to site ecology. Impacts
Alternatives

June 2003 8-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 on aquatic ecology could result from removal of in-water pipes and structures or the filling of the

2 discharge canal. Impacts to aquatic ecology would likely be short-term and could be mitigated. 

3 The aquatic environment is expected to recover naturally. Impacts on terrestrial ecology,

4 following cessation of operations, should be greatly reduced because there will be less use of

5 the land on and off the site. Impacts on terrestrial ecology, related to decommissioning

6 activities, could occur as a result of land disturbance for additional laydown yards, stockpiles,

7 and support facilities. Land disturbance is expected to be minimal and would result in relatively

8 short-term impacts that can be mitigated using best management practices. The land is

9 expected to recover naturally. Overall, the impacts associated with the no-action alternative

10 and decommissioning on terrestrial and aquatic ecology are considered SMALL.

11

12  Water Use and Quality

13

14 Cessation of plant operations would result in a significant reduction in water use because

15 reactor cooling will no longer be required. As plant staff size decreases, the demand for

16 potable water is expected to also decrease. Water use during decommissioning is expected to

17 be less than during operation. The water quality is unlikely to be adversely affected unless

18 onsite disposal of demolition debris is utilized. Overall, water use and quality impacts of the no19 action alternative and decommissioning are considered SMALL.

20

21  Air Quality

22

23 Emission from diesel generators, boilers, and other activities associated with Ginna operations

24 will cease or be greatly reduced. During normal operations, emissions from these Ginna

25 sources are lower than the thresholds in New York state and Federal air-quality regulations. 

26 Decommissioning activities that can adversely affect air quality include dismantlement of

27 systems and equipment, demolition of buildings and structures, and the operation of internal

28 combustion engines. The most likely adverse impact would be the generation of fugitive dust. 

29 Best management practices, such as seeding and wetting, could be used to minimize the

30 generation of fugitive dust. Air-quality impacts associated with the no-action alternative and

31 decommissioning are considered SMALL.

32

33  Waste

34

35 Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive wastes are by-products of reactor operations. Liquid

36 wastes are generated primarily by plant maintenance and service operations. The primary

37 source of gas is displaced from the chemical and volume control system tanks used to store

38 liquids. Solid wastes include dry active waste, sludge, oil, bead resin, and filters. These wastes

39 will be eliminated or greatly reduced by the cessation of operations. Decommissioning activities

40 would result in the generation of radioactive and non-radioactive waste. The staff concluded in

41 NRC (2002) that the volume of low-level waste generated during decommissioning could vary
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-4 June 2003

1 greatly depending on the type and size of the plant, the length of time it operated, the

2 decommissioning option chosen, and the waste treatment and volume reduction procedures

3 used. Low-level radioactive waste must be disposed of in a facility licensed by NRC or a state

4 with authority delegated by NRC. Recent advances in volume reduction and waste processing

5 have significantly reduced waste volumes. A permanent repository for high-level waste is not

6 currently available. The NRC has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel

7 generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for

8 at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised

9 or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite

10 independent spent fuel storage installations (10 CFR 51.23(a)). Onsite and offsite licensed

11 disposal facilities would be used for disposal of non-radioactive waste. Overall, waste impacts

12 associated with the no-action alternative and decommissioning are considered SMALL.

13

14  Human Health

15

16 During operation of Ginna, releases and the resultant dose revealed that the doses to

17 maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of Ginna have been a small fraction of the limits

18 specified to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. The assessment of

19 radiation dose to the general public from effluents indicates the dose is only a fraction of the

20 regulatory limit. These potential exposures will be reduced following cessation of plant

21 operations. Radiological doses to occupational workers during decommissioning activities are

22 estimated to average approximately 5 percent of the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, and to be

23 similar to, or lower than, the doses experienced by workers in operating nuclear power plants. 

24 Effluent releases from decommissioning activities are estimated to be well below the limits in

25 10 CFR Part 20, and to be similar to, or lower than, effluent releases from operating nuclear

26 power plants. These effluent releases will result in doses to the public well below

27 10 CFR Part 20 requirements. Occupational injuries to workers engaged in decommissioning

28 activities are possible. However, historical injury and fatality rates at nuclear power plants have

29 been lower than the average U.S. industrial rates. For years, America's commercial nuclear

30 energy industry has ranked among the safest places to work in the United States. In 2000, its

31 industrial safety accident rate, which tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work

32 time, restricted work, or fatalities, was 0.26 per 200,000 worker-hours. This is lower than the

33 accident rate for the U.S. manufacturing industry, at 3.95, and even lower than the accident rate

34 for the workplaces of the U.S. finance, insurance, and real estate industries, at 0.62 (NEI 2003). 

35 Overall, the human health impacts associated with the no-action alternative and

36 decommissioning are considered SMALL.

37

38  Socioeconomics

39

40 If Ginna ceased operation, there would be a decrease in employment and tax revenues

41 associated with the closure. Employment (primary and secondary) impacts and impacts on
Alternatives

June 2003 8-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 population would occur over a wide area. Employees working at Ginna reside in a number of

2 New York counties including Wayne, Monroe, Ontario, and Livingston (RG&E 2002). Tax3 related impacts would occur in Wayne County. In 2001, RG&E paid property taxes for Ginna to

4 Wayne County, the town of Ontario, and the Wayne Central School District in the amount of

5 $5,376,263 (RG&E 2002). This payment represented approximately 1.6 percent of total

6 revenues in Wayne County and approximately 11 percent of total revenues for the town of

7 Ontario. Payments to the Wayne Central School District accounted for 12.4 percent of the total

8 district revenue between 1995 and 1999.

9

10 The no-action alternative would result in the loss of the taxes attributable to Ginna as well as

11 the loss of plant payrolls 20 years earlier than if the OL was renewed. There would also be an

12 adverse impact on housing values and the local nearby economy if Ginna ceased operations.

13

14 RG&E employees working at Ginna currently contribute time and money toward community

15 involvement, including schools, churches, charities, and other civic activities. It is likely that with

16 a reduced presence in the community following decommissioning, community involvement

17 efforts by RG&E and its employees in the region would be less.

18

19 Both Chapter 7 of the GEIS and Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002) note that

20 socioeconomic impacts would be expected as a result of the decision to close a nuclear power

21 plant, and that the direction and magnitude of the overall impacts would depend on the state of

22 the economy, the net change in workforce at the plant, and the changes in local government tax

23 receipts. The socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning activities are expected to be SMALL. 

24 Appendix J of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 shows that the overall socioeconomic impact of

25 plant closure plus decommissioning could be greater than SMALL.

26

27 The staff has concluded that when the property tax revenue from a nuclear power plant

28 comprises less than 10 percent of the tax revenue of a local jurisdiction, the socioeconomic

29 impacts associated with the loss of the plant’s tax revenue as a result of plant closure is

30 considered SMALL. The property taxes that RG&E pays for Ginna comprise less than

31 10 percent of total revenue of Wayne County; however, it comprises slightly more than

32 10 percent of the total revenue for both the town of Ontario and the Wayne Central School

33 District; consequently, the socioeconomic impacts resulting from loss of this revenue are

34 considered SMALL to MODERATE.

35

36 Employees at Ginna constitute approximately 1 percent of total employment in Wayne County. 

37 Loss of these jobs is considered to have a SMALL socioeconomic impact.

38

39 Overall, the staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts associated with the no-action

40 alternative are considered SMALL to MODERATE and the impacts of decommissioning are

41 considered SMALL.
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-6 June 2003

1  Aesthetics

2

3 Cessation of plant operations would probably result in the dismantlement of buildings and

4 structures at the site resulting in a positive aesthetic impact. Operational noise would be

5 reduced or eliminated. Decommissioning would result in the eventual dismantlement of

6 buildings and structures at the site resulting in a positive aesthetic impact. Noise would be

7 generated during decommissioning operations that may be detectable offsite; however, the

8 impact is unlikely to be of large significance and can normally be mitigated. Thus, the aesthetic

9 impacts associated with the no-action alternative and decommissioning are considered SMALL.

10

11  Historic and Archaeological Resources

12

13 Use of land resources at Ginna would be reduced following plant closure. The site would likely

14 be retained by RG&E for other corporate purposes. Sale or transfer of the site could follow

15 closure. Reduced use of the property will reduce the likelihood of adversely impacting historic

16 and archaeological resources. The amount of undisturbed land needed to support the

17 decommissioning process will be relatively small. The staff concluded in NRC (2002) that

18 decommissioning activities conducted within the operational areas of a nuclear power plant are

19 not expected to have a detectable effect on important cultural resources because these areas

20 have been impacted during the operating life of the plant. Minimal disturbance of land outside

21 the licensee’s operational area for decommissioning activities is expected. Historic and

22 archaeological resources on undisturbed portions of the site should not be adversely affected. 

23 Following decommissioning, the site would likely be retained by RG&E for other corporate

24 purposes. Eventual sale or transfer of the site, however, could result in adverse impacts to

25 cultural resources if the land-use pattern changes dramatically. Notwithstanding this possibility,

26 the impacts of the no-action alternative and decommissioning on historic and archaeological

27 resources are considered SMALL.

28

29  Environmental Justice

30

31 Current operations at Ginna have no disproportionate impacts on the minority and low-income

32 populations of Wayne and surrounding counties. No environmental pathways have been

33 identified that would cause disproportionate impacts if the no-action alternative is implemented. 

34 Closure of Ginna would result in decreased employment opportunities and tax revenues in

35 Wayne and surrounding counties, with possible negative and disproportionate impacts on

36 minority or low-income populations. Ginna is located near a relatively urban area with many

37 employment opportunities. Decommissioning activities are not expected to adversely impact

38 the minority and low-income populations of Wayne and surrounding counties. Thus, the

39 environmental justice impacts under the no-action alternative and decommissioning are

40 considered SMALL.

41
Alternatives

June 2003 8-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  Summary of the No-Action Alternative

2

3 The environmental impacts associated with the no-action alternative are summarized in

4 Table 8-1. Implementation of the no-action alternative would also have certain positive impacts

5 in that adverse environmental impacts associated with current operation of Ginna (for example,

6 solid waste generation and impingement or entrainment of aquatic life) would be eliminated.

7

8 Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative and

9 Decommissioning Related to Renewal of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

10 Operating License

11

12 Impact Category Impact Comment

13 Land Use SMALL Closure will result in decreased land use. 

Decommissioning onsite impacts expected to be

temporary. No offsite impacts expected or plant closure

or decommissioning.

14 Ecology SMALL Plant closure will immediately reduce impacts to

terrestrial and aquatic ecology. Decommissioning

impacts to ecology are expected to be temporary and will

be mitigated using best management practices.

15 Water Use and Quality SMALL Water use will decrease. Water quality unlikely to be

adversely affected unless onsite disposal of demolition

debris is utilized.

16 Air Quality SMALL All emissions will decrease following closure. During

decommissioning, the greatest impact is likely to be from

fugitive dust; impact can be mitigated by good

management practices.

17 Waste SMALL Low-level radioactive waste will be disposed of in licensed

facilities. A permanent disposal facility for high-level

waste is not currently available.

18 Human Health SMALL Radiological doses to workers and members of the public

are expected to be within regulatory limits and

comparable to, or lower than, doses from operating

plants. Occupational injuries, during decommissioning,

are possible, but injury rates at nuclear power plants are

below the U.S. average industrial rate.

19 Socioeconomics SMALL to

MODERATE

Following plant closure there will be a decrease in

employment in Wayne and surrounding counties and tax

revenues in Wayne County. There will be some

employment created during decommissioning.

20 Aesthetics SMALL Positive impact from eventual removal of buildings

and structures. Some noise impact during

decommissioning operations.
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-8 June 2003

1 Table 8-1. (contd)

2

3 Impact Category Impact Comment

4 Historic and Archaeological Resources SMALL Use of the properties will decrease following plant closure

and will be controlled during decommissioning. 

5 Environmental Justice SMALL Some loss of employment opportunities and social

programs is expected.

6

7 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources

8

9 This section describes the environmental impacts associated with alternative sources of electric

10 power to replace the power generated by Ginna, assuming that the OL is not renewed. The

11 order of presentation of alternative energy sources in Section 8.2 does not imply which

12 alternative would be most likely to occur or to have the least environmental impacts. The

13 following generation alternatives are considered in detail:

14

15  coal-fired generation at the Ginna site or at an alternate site (Section 8.2.1)

16

17  natural-gas-fired generation at the Ginna site or at an alternate site (Section 8.2.2)

18

19  nuclear generation at the Ginna site or at an alternate site (Section 8.2.3).

20

21 The alternative of purchasing power from other sources to replace power generated by Ginna is

22 discussed in Section 8.2.4. Other power generation alternatives and conservation alternatives

23 considered by the staff and found not to be reasonable replacements for Ginna are discussed

24 in Section 8.2.5. The environmental impacts of a combination of generation and conservation

25 alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.6.

26

27 The Ginna site is approximately 197 ha (488 ac) and was originally planned to accommodate an

28 additional nuclear power unit west of the existing plant. A replacement power plant, regardless

29 of fuel type, could be placed at this site and could therefore use existing infrastructure (e.g.,

30 cooling water system, transmission, roads, and technical and administrative support facilities). 

31 However, for other reasons, such as fuel-delivery infrastructure limitations, there may be

32 advantages to locating any replacement power plants elsewhere in western New York state.

33

34 Each year the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of

35 Energy (DOE), issues an annual energy outlook. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2003, EIA

36 projects that natural-gas-fired combined-cycle or combustion turbine technology (including

37 distributed generation capacity), will make up 80 percent of new electric-generating capacity

38 through the year 2025 (DOE/EIA 2003). Both technologies are designed primarily to supply

39 peak and intermediate capacity, but combined-cycle technology can also be used to meet base-
Alternatives

(a) A base-load plant normally operates to supply all or part of the minimum continuous load of a

system and consequently produces electricity at an essentially constant rate. Nuclear power plants

are commonly used for base-load generation (i.e., these units generally run near full load).

(b) The units would have a rating of 297.5 gross MW(t) and 265 net MW(e). The difference between

“gross” and “net” is electricity consumed on the plant site.

June 2003 8-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

load(a) 1 requirements. Coal-fired plants are projected by EIA to account for approximately 17

2 percent of new capacity during this period. Coal-fired plants are generally used to meet base3 load requirements. Renewable energy sources, primarily wind, geothermal, and municipal solid

4 waste units, are projected by EIA to account for the remaining 3 percent of capacity additions. 

5 EIA’s projections are based on the assumption that providers of new generating capacity will

6 seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable environmental requirements. Combined-cycle

7 plants are projected by EIA to have the lowest generation cost in 2005 and 2025, followed by

8 coal-fired plants and then wind generation (DOE/EIA 2003).

9

10 EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little new generation capacity in the

11 United States through the year 2025 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies

12 (DOE/EIA 2003).

13

14 EIA also projects that new nuclear power plants will not account for any new generation

15 capacity in the United States through the year 2025 because natural-gas and coal-fired plants

16 are projected to be more economical (DOE/EIA 2003). In spite of this projection, a new nuclear

17 plant alternative for replacing power generated by Ginna is considered for reasons stated in

18 Section 8.2.3. NRC established a New Reactor Licensing Project Office in 2001 to prepare for

19 and manage future reactor and site licensing applications (NRC 2001).

20

21 If an alternative generating technology were selected to replace power generated by Ginna,

22 Ginna would be decommissioned. Environmental impacts associated with decommissioning

23 are discussed in Section 8.1 and are not otherwise addressed in Section 8.2.

24

25 8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation

26

27 Environmental impact information for a replacement coal-fired power plant using closed-cycle

28 cooling with cooling towers is presented in Section 8.2.1.1 and using once-through cooling in

29 Section 8.2.1.2.

30

31 The staff assumed construction of two coal-generating companion units, each producing

265-megawatt electric [MW(e)] units,(b) 32 which is consistent with RG&E’s Environmental Report

33 (ER) for Ginna (RG&E 2002). This assumption will slightly overstate the impacts of replacing
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-10 June 2003

1 the 490 MW(e) from Ginna; however, an additional assumption is made that these power plants

2 would operate at 80 percent capacity to correspond with the annual net production of 422

3 MW(e) from Ginna.

4

5 Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used in Section 8.2.1 are

6 from the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002). The staff reviewed this information and compared it to

7 environmental impact information in the GEIS. Although the OL renewal period is only

8 20 years, the impact of operating the coal-fired alternative for 40 years is considered (as a

9 reasonable projection of the operating life of a coal-fired plant).

10

11 The coal-fired alternative is analyzed for the Ginna site and an unspecified greenfield alternate

12 site in western upstate New York. RG&E assumes in its ER that the plant would burn

13 medium-sulfur bituminous coal of the type currently used at its Russell Station. This coal

14 originates in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Average characteristics of this fuel include a heat

15 content of 30,775 kJ/kg (13,233 Btu/lb), a sulfur content of 2.22 percent by weight

(7.2 x 10-4 16 g/kJ [1.68 lb/MMBtu]), and an ash content of 7.35 percent by weight. Scaling from

17 DOE estimates for comparable units, taking into account differences in fuel heat content and

18 capacity factor, RG&E estimates that the plant would consume approximately 1.3 million MT

19 (1.4 million tons) of coal per year. Construction of a new electric power transmission line to

20 connect to existing lines and a rail spur to the plant site may be needed.

21

22 8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

23

24 The overall impacts at either the Ginna or alternate sites of the coal-fired generating system

25 using a closed-cycle cooling system with cooling towers are discussed in the following sections. 

26 The magnitude of impacts for the alternate site will depend on the location of the particular site

27 selected. The Ginna plant currently uses a once-through cooling system. For the purposes of

28 comparison with an alternative site, however, it is assumed that the replacement coal-fired plant

29 sited on the Ginna site would use a closed-cycle cooling system, which would most likely

30 require the acquisition of additional land adjacent to the site.

31

32  Land Use

33

34 The coal-fired generation alternative at the Ginna site would necessitate converting

35 approximately 130 ha (320 ac) to industrial use for the power block, infrastructure and support

36 facilities, coal storage and handling, and landfill disposal of ash, spent selective catalytic

reduction (SCR) catalyst (used for control of nitrogen oxide [NOx 37 ] emissions), and scrubber

38 sludge (RG&E 2002). Of this amount, disposal of ash and sludge over a 40-year plant life

39 would require approximately 105 ha (260 ac) (RG&E 2002). Additional land could be needed

40 for an electric power transmission line, and a rail spur or barge slip and supporting facilities. 

41 Although the Ginna site has an existing once-through cooling system, it is likely that the system
Alternatives

June 2003 8-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 would need to be significantly modified to accommodate a coal plant with a closed-cycle cooling

2 system. The alternate site would require construction of pipelines for cooling-water intake and

3 discharge. During construction of the coal plant on the Ginna site, it is likely that the land

4 requirements would exceed the size of the existing Ginna site, which would necessitate the

5 acquisition of additional land adjacent to the site.

6

7 Locating the plant at an alternate site may require more site acreage than for the Ginna station

8 siting alternative to provide for additional onsite support infrastructure and buffer areas. For

9 example, scaling for plant size from the NRC’s estimate for a 1000 MW plant (NRC 1996), a

10 900-ac site could be required.

11

12 Land-use changes would occur offsite in an undetermined coal-mining area to supply coal for

13 the plant. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 8900 ha (22,000 ac) would be

14 affected for mining the coal and disposing of the waste to support a 1000 MW(e) coal plant

15 during its operational life (NRC 1996). A replacement coal-fired plant for Ginna would generate

16 425 MW(e), so proportionately less land would be affected. Partially offsetting this offsite land

17 use would be the elimination of the need for uranium mining and processing to supply fuel for

18 Ginna. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 400 ha (1000 ac) would be affected

19 for mining and processing the uranium during the operating life of a 1000 MW(e) nuclear power

20 plant (NRC 1996).

21

22 The impact of a coal-fired generating unit with a closed-cycle cooling system on land use

23 located at either the Ginna site or at an alternate New York site is considered as MODERATE

24 to LARGE. The impact would be greater than the alternative of renewing the OLs.

25

26  Ecology

27

28 The coal-fired generation alternative at the Ginna site would use undeveloped areas of the site,

29 which is primarily made up of wooded areas and orchards. In addition, there are two streams

30 that flow through the site that would most likely be impacted. If the rail delivery option is

31 chosen, it would require the construction of a 4.8-km (3.0-mi)-long rail spur to an existing rail

32 line and the use of a 29-km (18-mi) corridor that is not currently used. If the barge delivery

33 option is chosen, a navigable channel would need to be dredged and a dockage area would

34 need to be constructed. Barge delivery would require maintenance dredging during operation

35 of the plant. Cooling tower drift could result in some minor impacts.

36

37 Because construction would result in the loss of hundreds of acres of habitat for the plant,

38 infrastructure and waste disposal, the staff considers the ecological impacts of a new coal-fired

39 plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the Ginna site to be MODERATE.

40
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-12 June 2003

1 Coal-fired generation at an alternative site would introduce construction impacts and new

2 incremental operational impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the

3 impacts would alter the ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced

4 productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Use of cooling

5 makeup water from a nearby surface-water body could have adverse impacts on aquatic

6 resources. If needed, construction and maintenance of an electric power transmission line and

7 a rail spur would have ecological impacts. There would be some impact on terrestrial ecology

8 from water drift from the cooling towers. Overall, the ecological impacts of constructing a coal9 fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site are considered to be

10 MODERATE to LARGE and would be greater than renewal of the Ginna OL.

11

12  Water Use and Quality

13

14 Coal-fired generation at the Ginna site would likely use water from Lake Ontario for cooling. It

15 is possible that some of the existing intake and discharge structures could be used, but the

16 construction of additional cooling infrastructure would be needed to accommodate a closed17 cycle cooling system. Plant discharges would consist mostly of cooling tower blowdown,

18 characterized primarily by an increased temperature and concentration of dissolved solids

19 relative to the receiving water body and intermittent low concentrations of biocides (e.g.,

20 chlorine). Treated process waste streams and sanitary wastewater may also be discharged. 

21 All discharges would be regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental

22 Conservation (NYSDEC) through a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)

23 permit. There would be a consumptive use of water due to evaporation from the cooling

24 towers. Some erosion and sedimentation would likely occur during construction (NRC 1996). 

25 The staff considers the impacts to surface-water use and quality of a new coal-fired plant with a

26 closed-cycle cooling system located at the Ginna site to be SMALL.

27

28 Cooling water at an alternate site would likely be withdrawn from a surface-water body and

29 would be regulated by permit. Depending on the source water body, the impacts of water use

30 for cooling system makeup water and the effects on water quality due to cooling tower

31 blowdown could have noticeable impacts. Therefore, the staff considers the impacts of a new

32 coal-fired plant utilizing a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site to be SMALL to

33 MODERATE.

34

35 Use of groundwater at the Ginna site is unlikely, but is possible for a coal-fired plant at an

36 alternate site. Groundwater withdrawal could require a permit. Overall, impacts to groundwater

37 use and quality of a new coal-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the Ginna site

38 are considered SMALL and the impacts to groundwater use and quality of such a plant at an

39 alternate site are considered SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the volume of groundwater

40 withdrawn.

41
Alternatives

(a) Criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act are ozone, carbon monoxide, particulates, SO2, lead, and

NOx. Emission standards for criteria pollutants are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51.

June 2003 8-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  Air Quality

2

3 The air-quality impacts of coal-fired generation differ considerably from those of nuclear

generation due to emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), NOx 4 , particulates, carbon monoxide,

5 hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, and naturally occurring radioactive materials.

6

7 A new coal-fired generating plant would likely need a prevention of significant deterioration

8 (PSD) permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. The plant would need to comply

9 with the new source performance standards for such plants set forth in 40 CFR Part 60,

10 Subpart Da. The standards establish emission limits for particulate matter and opacity (40 CFR

60.42a), sulfur dioxide (SO2) (40 CFR 60.43a), and NOx 11 (40 CFR 60.44a). The facility would be

12 designed to meet Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emissions

13 Rate (LAER) standards, as applicable, for control of criteria air emissions.

14

15 The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51,

16 Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an

area designated as attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants(a) 17 under the Clean Air Act. 

18 All of the RG&E potential power plant sites are most likely in areas that are designated as

19 attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants.

20

21 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing

22 future, and remedying existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when

23 impairment results from man-made air pollution. In addition, EPA regulations provide that for

24 each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a state, the state must establish goals that

25 provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable

26 progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most-impaired days over the

27 period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least-impaired

28 days over the same period [40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)]. The Ginna site and the surrounding region

29 are not located within a Class I Federal area.

30

31 Impacts for specific pollutants are as follows:

32

33  Sulfur oxides. A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the requirements in Title

IV of the Clean Air Act. Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx 34 , the

35 two principal precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these pollutants from

power plants. Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant SO2 36 emissions and imposes

controls on SO2 37 emissions through a system of marketable allowances. EPA issues one

allowance for each ton of SO2 38 that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not receive
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-14 June 2003

allowances, but are required to have allowances to cover their SO2 1 emissions. Owners

2 of new units must therefore either acquire allowances from owners of other power plants

by purchase or reduce SO2 3 emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances can

4 be banked for use in future years. Thus, a new coal-fired power plant would not add to

net regional SO2 emissions, although it might do so locally. Regardless, SO2 5 emissions

6 would be greater for the coal alternative than the OL renewal alternative since a nuclear

power plant releases almost no SO2 7 during normal operations.

8

RG&E estimates that by using the best technology to minimize SO2 9 emissions, the total

annual stack emissions would be approximately 2661 MT (2933 tons) of SO2 10 (RG&E 2002). 

11 RG&E states in its ER that an alternative coal-fired plant would use wet limestone flue-gas

12 desulfurization technology (RG&E 2002).

13

14  Nitrogen oxides. Section 407 of the Clean Air Act establishes technology-based

emission limitations for NOx 15 emissions. The market-based allowance system used for

SO2 emissions is not used for NOx 16 emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be

17 subject to the new source performance standard for such plants at 40 CFR

60.44a(d)(1), which limits the discharge of any gases that contain NOx 18 (expressed as

NO2 19 ) to 200 ng/J of gross energy output (1.6 lb/MWh), based on a 30-day rolling

20 average.

21

RG&E estimates that by using low-NOx 22 burners with overfire air and SCR, the total annual

NOx 23 emissions for a new coal-fired power plant would be approximately 1597 MT (1760

tons) (RG&E 2002). Regardless of the control technology, this level of NOx 24 emissions

25 would be greater than the OL renewal alternative, because a nuclear power plant releases

almost no NOx 26 during normal operations.

27

28  Particulates. RG&E estimates that the total annual stack emissions of particulates

would include approximately 195 MT (215 tons) of PM10 29 (particulate matter having an

30 aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 m). Fabric filters or electrostatic

31 precipitators would be used for control (RG&E 2002). In addition, coal-handling

32 equipment would introduce fugitive particulate emissions. Particulate emissions would

33 be greater under the coal alternative than the OL renewal alternative since a nuclear

34 plant releases few particles during normal operations.

35

36 During the construction of a coal-fired plant, fugitive dust would be generated. In addition,

37 exhaust emissions would come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during

38 construction.

39
Alternatives

June 2003 8-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  Carbon monoxide. RG&E estimates that total carbon monoxide emissions would be

2 approximately 2781 MT (3066 tons) per year (RG&E 2002). This level of emissions is

3 greater than the OL renewal alternative.

4

5  Hazardous air pollutants including mercury. In December 2000, the EPA issued

6 regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam7 generating units (EPA 2000a). The EPA determined that coal- and oil-fired electric

8 utility steam-generating units are significant emitters of hazardous air pollutants. Coal9 fired power plants were found by EPA to emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,

10 dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury

11 (EPA 2000a). The EPA concluded that mercury is the hazardous air pollutant of

12 greatest concern. The EPA found that (1) there is a link between coal consumption and

13 mercury emissions; (2) electric utility steam-generating units are the largest domestic

14 source of mercury emissions; and (3) certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the

15 developing fetus and subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to be at potential

16 risk of adverse health effects due to mercury exposures resulting from consumption of

17 contaminated fish (EPA 2000a). Accordingly, EPA added coal- and oil-fired electric

18 utility steam-generating units to the list of source categories under Section 112(c) of the

19 Clean Air Act for which emission standards for hazardous air pollutants will be issued

20 (EPA 2000a).

21

22  Uranium and thorium. Coal contains uranium and thorium. Uranium concentrations are

23 generally in the range of 1 to 10 parts per million. Thorium concentrations are generally

24 about 2.5 times greater than uranium concentrations (Gabbard 1993). One estimate is

25 that a typical coal-fired plant had an annual release of approximately 4.7 MT (5.2 tons)

26 of uranium and 11.6 MT (12.8 tons) of thorium in 1982 (Gabbard 1993). The population

27 dose equivalent from the uranium and thorium releases and daughter products

28 produced by the decay of these isotopes has been calculated to be significantly higher

29 than that from nuclear power plants (Gabbard 1993).

30

31  Carbon dioxide. A coal-fired plant would have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions

32 that could contribute to global warming.

33

34 The GEIS analysis did not quantify emissions from coal-fired power plants but implied that air

35 impacts would be substantial. The GEIS also mentioned global warming from unregulated

carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SOx and NOx 36 emissions as potential impacts

37 (NRC 1996). Adverse human health effects from coal combustion such as cancer and

38 emphysema have been associated with the products of coal combustion. Although local air

39 quality would noticeably be reduced from the presence of a coal plant, equivalent regional

allowances for SO2 40 emissions would have to be obtained and credits to more than offset NOx

41 emissions by a ratio of 1.15:1.00 would also have to be obtained. The appropriate
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-16 June 2003

1 characterization of air impacts from coal-fired generation at either the Ginna site or an alternate

2 site are considered to be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not

3 destabilize air quality.

4

5  Waste

6

7 Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution

8 generates additional ash, spent SCR catalyst, and scrubber sludge. One 422-MW(e) coal-fired

9 plant would annually generate approximately 148,000 MT (163,000 tons) of ash and 138,000

10 MT (152,000 tons) of scrubber sludge. Spent SCR catalyst would be regenerated or disposed

11 of offsite. Construction-related debris would be generated during construction activities. Waste

12 impacts to groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of the plant if

13 leachate and runoff from the waste storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste could noticeably

14 affect land use and groundwater quality but, with appropriate management and monitoring, it

15 would not destabilize any resources. After closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land

16 could be available for some other uses.

17

18 In May 2000, the EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the

19 Combustion of Fossil Fuels” (EPA 2000). The EPA concluded that some form of national

20 regulation is warranted to address coal combustion waste products because (1) the

21 composition of these wastes could present danger to human health and the environment under

22 certain conditions; (2) EPA has identified 11 documented cases of proven damage to human

23 health and the environment by improper management of these wastes in landfills and surface

24 impoundments; (3) present disposal practices are such that, in 1995, these wastes were being

25 managed in 40 percent to 70 percent of landfills and surface impoundments without reasonable

26 controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring; and (4) EPA identified gaps

27 in state oversight of coal combustion wastes. Accordingly, EPA announced its intention to

28 issue regulations for disposal of coal combustion waste under subtitle D of the Resource

29 Conservation and Recovery Act.

30

31 For all of the preceding reasons, the impacts from waste generated by a coal-fired plant using

32 once-through cooling at either the Ginna site or at an alternate site are considered to be

33 MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly noticeable but would not destabilize any important

34 resource.

35

36  Human Health

37

38 Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risk from coal and limestone mining, worker and

39 public risk from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal of

40 coal combustion wastes, and public risk from inhalation of stack emissions.

41
Alternatives

June 2003 8-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Emission impacts can be widespread and health risk is difficult to quantify. The coal alternative

2 also introduces the risk of coal pile fires and attendant inhalation risk.

3

4 The staff stated in the GEIS that there could be human health impacts (cancer and

5 emphysema) from inhalation of toxins and particulates from a coal-fired plant, but the GEIS

6 does not identify the significance of these impacts (NRC 1996). In addition, the discharges of

7 uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce radiological doses in excess

8 of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993).

9

10 Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and state agencies, set air emission standards and

11 requirements based on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific

12 emission limits as needed to protect human health. As discussed previously, the EPA has

13 recently concluded that certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus and

14 subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects

15 due to mercury exposures from sources such as coal-fired power plants. However, in the

16 absence of more quantitative data, human health impacts from radiological doses and inhaling

17 toxins and particulates generated by a coal-fired plant at either the Ginna or alternate site are

18 considered to be SMALL.

19

20  Socioeconomics

21

22 If a coal-fired power plant were built on the Ginna site, the community would not lose the tax

23 base; however, they would experience a net loss of operational jobs, down from 500 to

24 100-150 plant employees. If a coal-fired power plant were built at an alternate site to replace

25 power produced by Ginna, the communities around the Ginna site would experience the impact

26 of Ginna operational job loss and the town of Ontario, the Wayne Central School District, and

27 Wayne County would lose the Ginna tax base. These losses would have SMALL to

28 MODERATE socioeconomic impacts, given the fact that Ginna provides less than 10 percent of

29 the total revenue in Wayne County and slightly over 10 percent of the total revenue in the town

30 of Ontario and the Wayne Central School District (Section 8.1.7).

31

32 During construction of the new coal-fired plant, communities near the construction site would

33 experience demands on housing and public services that could have a MODERATE impact

34 around the Ginna site and possibly a MODERATE to LARGE impact at an alternative site. After

35 construction, the nearby communities would be impacted by the loss of the construction jobs. 

36 The construction of the representative coal-fired plant would require a peak onsite workforce of

37 approximately 820 workers and would take approximately three years to complete. It is

38 estimated that the completed coal plant would employ approximately 100-150 workers. The

39 coal-fired plant would provide a new tax base for the local jurisdiction at an alternative site. The

40 staff stated in the GEIS that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than at an

41 urban site because more of the peak construction workforce would need to move to the area to
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-18 June 2003

1 work (NRC 1996). Socioeconomic impacts at a rural site could be MODERATE. 

2 Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting construction and plant operating

3 personnel at the Ginna site would likely be SMALL. Transportation-related impacts associated

4 with commuting construction workers at an alternate site are site-dependent, but could be

5 SMALL to MODERATE. Transportation impacts related to commuting of plant operating

6 personnel would also be site-dependent, but can be characterized as SMALL.

7

8 Coal and lime/limestone would likely be delivered to both the Ginna and alternative site by rail

9 or barge. Socioeconomic impacts associated with rail transportation would likely be SMALL to

10 MODERATE. For example, there would be delays to highway traffic as trains pass and there

11 could be negative impacts on the value of property close to the train tracks. Barge delivery of

12 coal and lime/limestone would likely have SMALL socioeconomic impacts.

13

14 Overall, the socioeconomic impacts of constructing and operating a coal-fired generating plant

15 at the Ginna site are considered to be SMALL to MODERATE. The socioeconomic impacts of

16 a coal-fired plant at an alternate site are considered to be MODERATE to LARGE depending on

17 the alternate site location.

18

19  Aesthetics

20

21 The two coal-fired power block units could be as much as 61 m (200 ft) tall and be visible from

22 offsite during daylight hours. The exhaust stacks could be as much as 152 m (500 ft) high. 

23 The stacks would likely be highly visible in daylight hours for distances greater than 16 km

24 (10 mi). Cooling towers and associated plumes would also have an aesthetic impact. Natural

25 draft towers could be up to 160 m (520 ft) high. Mechanical draft towers could be up to 30 m

26 (100 ft) high. The stacks would be visible from parks, other recreational areas, and wildlife

27 refuges in the vicinity of the plant. The power block units and associated stacks and cooling

28 towers would also be visible at night because of outside lighting. The U.S. Federal Aviation

29 Administration (FAA) generally requires that all structures exceeding an overall height of 61 m

30 (200 ft) above ground level have markings and/or lighting so as not to impair aviation safety

31 (FAA 2000). Visual impacts of a new coal-fired plant could be mitigated by landscaping and

32 color selection for buildings that is consistent with the environment. Visual impact at night could

33 be mitigated by reduced use of lighting, provided the lighting meets FAA requirements, and

34 appropriate use of shielding. Overall, the coal-fired units and the associated exhaust stacks

35 and cooling towers would likely have a MODERATE to LARGE aesthetic impact. There would

36 also be an aesthetic impact that could be LARGE if construction of a new electric power

37 transmission line is needed.

38

39 Coal-fired generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible

40 offsite. Sources contributing to the noise produced by plant operation are classified as

41 continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment associated
Alternatives

June 2003 8-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 with normal plant operations and mechanical draft cooling towers. Intermittent sources include

2 the equipment related to coal handling, solid waste disposal, transportation related to coal and

3 lime/limestone delivery, use of outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. 

4 Noise impacts associated with rail delivery of coal and lime/limestone would be most significant

5 for residents living in the vicinity of the facility and along the rail route. Although noise from

6 passing trains significantly raises noise levels near the rail corridor, the short duration of the

7 noise reduces the impact. Nevertheless, given the frequency of train transport and the fact that

8 many people are likely to be within hearing distance of the rail route, the impacts of noise on

9 residents in the vicinity of the facility and the rail line is considered MODERATE. Noise

10 associated with barge transportation of coal and lime/limestone would be SMALL. Noise and

11 light from the plant would be detectable offsite. Aesthetic impacts at the plant site would be

12 mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area or adjacent to other power plants.

13

14 Overall, the aesthetic impacts associated with locating a coal-fired plant with a closed-cycle

15 cooling system at either the Ginna or an alternate New York site are considered to be 

16 MODERATE to LARGE.

17

18  Historic and Archaeological Resources

19

20 An historic and archaeological resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite

21 property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to

22 support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field resources, identification and

23 recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of adverse

24 effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant

25 site.

26

27 Before construction, studies would likely be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation

28 of the potential impacts of new plant construction on historic and archaeological resources. 

29 The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant

30 site and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g., roads,

31 transmission corridors, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic and archaeological resource

32 impacts can generally be managed or mitigated to some extent. Therefore, the impacts of a

33 new coal-fired plant at either the Ginna or an alternate site could be SMALL to MODERATE.

34

35  Environmental Justice

36

37 If a coal-fired plant were located on the Ginna site, the environmental impacts on minority and

38 low-income populations around the site would most likely be SMALL. There may be some

39 impacts on housing that occur during construction; however, the impacts on minority and low40 income populations should be similar to those experienced by the population as a whole. The
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-20 June 2003

1 loss of Ginna operating jobs would be SMALL due to the proximity of the plant to a diverse

2 urban job market.

3

4 Environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement

5 coal-fired plant built at an alternate site in New York state would depend upon the site chosen

6 and the nearby population distribution. Some impacts on housing availability and prices during

7 construction might occur, and this could disproportionately affect minority and low-income

8 populations. Closure of Ginna would result in the loss of approximately 500 operating jobs. 

9 Resulting economic conditions could reduce employment prospects for minority or low-income

10 populations. However, Ginna is located in a relatively urban area with many employment

11 possibilities. Wayne County would also experience a loss of property tax revenue, which could

12 affect its ability to provide services and programs. However, these losses would likely have

13 SMALL environmental justice impacts given the moderate proportion of the tax base in Wayne

14 County attributable to Ginna (Section 8.1.7). Overall, impacts of a new coal-fired plant at either

15 the Ginna or an alternate site are considered to be SMALL.

16

17  Summary

18

19 The potential impacts of replacing the power produced by Ginna with a coal-fired generating

20 plant with a closed-cycle cooling system are summarized in Table 8-2.

21

22 Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using Closed23 Cycle Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site and an Alternate

24 Site in New York State

25

26 Ginna Site Alternate Site

27 Impact

28 Category Impact Comments Impact Comment

29 Land Use MODERATE

to LARGE

Uses up to approximately

130 ha (320 ac) for power

block; coal handling,

storage, and transportation

facilities; infrastructure

facilities; and waste

disposal. Additional land

impacts for coal and

limestone mining. 

Additional impacts would

occur for rail spur and

closed-cycle cooling-water

intake and discharge

piping.

MODERATE

to LARGE

May use up to approximately

360 ha (320 ac) for power

block; coal handling,

storage, and transportation

facilities; infrastructure

facilities; and waste disposal. 

Additional land impacts for

coal and limestone mining. 

Additional impacts would

occur for electric power

transmission line, rail spur,

and cooling-water intake and

discharge piping.
Alternatives

June 2003 8-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 8-2. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact Comments Impact Comment

6 Ecology MODERATE Uses undeveloped areas

in current site and possibly

other nearby land and

existing transmission

corridor. Construction of

barge slip and dredged

channel or 4.8-km (3.0-mi)

rail spur needed; impacts

to terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Impact depends on location

and ecology of the site,

surface-water body used for

intake and discharge, and

electric power transmission

line route; potential habitat

loss and fragmentation;

reduced productivity and

biological diversity; impacts

to terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift.

7 Surface-Water

8 Use and

9 Quality

SMALL Partial use of existing

intake and discharge

structures. Operational

impacts similar to or less

than Ginna.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the

volume of water withdrawn

and discharged, the

constituents in the discharge

water, and the

characteristics of the

surface-water body. 

Discharges would be

regulated by NYSDEC.

10 Groundwater

11 Use and

12 Quality

SMALL Use of groundwater is

unlikely.

SMALL TO

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the

volume of groundwater

withdrawn.

13 Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides

  2661 MT/yr (2933 tons/yr)

0.25 g/GJ (0.15 lb/MMBtu)

Nitrogen oxides

  1597 MT/yr (1760 tons/yr)

0.15 g/GJ (0.09 lb/MMBtu)

Particulates

  195 MT/yr (215 tons/yr) of

PM10

Carbon monoxide

  2781 MT/yr (3066 tons/yr) 

Small amounts of mercury

and other hazardous air

pollutants and naturally

occurring radioactive

materials – mainly uranium

and thorium

MODERATE Same as Ginna site.
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-22 June 2003

1 Table 8-2. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact Comments Impact Comment

6 Waste MODERATE Total waste volume would

be approximately

148,000 MT/yr

(163,000 tons/yr) of ash,

spent catalyst, and

138,000 MT/yr

(152,000 tons/yr) of

scrubber sludge requiring

approximately 105 ha

(260 ac) for disposal

during the 40-year life of

the plant.

MODERATE Same as Ginna site.

7 Human Health SMALL Impacts are uncertain, but

considered SMALL in the

absence of more

quantitative data.

SMALL Same as Ginna site.

8 Socioeconomics SMALL to

MODERATE

Increased demand for

public services during

construction (up to

820 workers needed

during 3-year construction

period). Net loss of jobs

during operation (from 500

to approximately

150 employees); tax base

preserved. Transportation

of coal and limestone

could have MODERATE

impact if rail line is used. 

For barge transportation,

the impact is considered

SMALL.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Construction impacts

depend on location, but

could be LARGE if plant is

located in a rural area. 

Wayne County would

experience loss of the Ginna

site tax base and

employment, but impacts are

likely to be SMALL to

MODERATE. Impacts

during operation would be

SMALL. Transportation

impacts associated with

construction workers could

be MODERATE to LARGE. 

For rail transportation of coal

and lime/limestone, the

impact is considered

MODERATE to LARGE. For

barge transportation, the

impact is considered

SMALL.
Alternatives

June 2003 8-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 8-2. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact Comments Impact Comment

6 Aesthetics MODERATE

to LARGE

Visual impact of large

industrial facility with

stacks and cooling towers

on lake shore could be

significant. Construction

and operation of new

barge facilities or railway

line to Rochester could

also impact aesthetics. 

Noise impacts from plant

operations and intermittent

sources such as rail

transportation of coal could

be MODERATE.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Impact would depend on the

site selected and the

surrounding land features. 

Power block, exhaust stacks,

cooling towers, and cooling

tower plumes will be visible

from nearby areas. If

needed, a new electric

power transmission line

could have a LARGE

aesthetic impact.

Noise impact from plant

operations and intermittent

sources such as rail

transportation of coal could

be MODERATE.

7 Historic and

8 Archaeological

9 Resources

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts can generally be

managed or mitigated.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Same as Ginna site.

10 Environmental

11 Justice

SMALL Impacts on minority and

low-income populations

should be similar to those

experienced by the

population as a whole. 

Some impacts on housing

may occur during

construction. Loss of

Ginna operating jobs

would be SMALL due to

the proximity of the plant to

a diverse urban job

market.

SMALL Impacts at alternate site vary

depending on population

distribution and makeup at

site. Wayne County would

lose tax revenue and jobs,

however, the impacts on

minority and low-income

populations would likely be

SMALL.

12

13 8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System

14

15 The environmental impacts of constructing a coal-fired generation system at the Ginna site and

16 an alternate site in New York state using once-through cooling are similar to the impacts for a

17 coal-fired plant using a closed-cycle cooling system. However, there are some environmental

18 differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-3

19 summarizes the incremental differences.
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-24 June 2003

1 Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation with Once2 Through Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or an

3 Alternate Site in New York State

4

5 Ginna Site Alternate Site

6 Impact

7 Category Impact

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System Impact

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System

8 Land Use MODERATE

to LARGE

10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac)

less land required

because cooling towers

and associated

infrastructure are not

needed.

MODERATE

to LARGE

10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac)

less land required because

cooling towers and

associated infrastructure

are not needed.

9 Ecology MODERATE Slightly less loss of

terrestrial habitat and

elimination of potential

cooling tower impacts. 

Increased water

withdrawal, but aquatic

impacts would be similar

to current Ginna

operations.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Slightly reduced habitat

loss, and no impacts to

terrestrial resources from

cooling towers, but

increased water withdrawal

may impact aquatic

resources.

10 Surface-Water

11 Use and

12 Quality

SMALL to

MODERATE

No discharge of cooling

tower blowdown. 

Increased water

withdrawal and more

thermal load on

receiving body of water.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the

characteristics of the

surface-water body, volume

of water withdrawn, and

characteristics of the

discharge.

13 Groundwater

14 Use

15 and Quality

SMALL No change SMALL It is unlikely that

groundwater would be used

for once-through cooling,

but could be used for

sanitary water.

16 Air Quality MODERATE No change MODERATE No change

17 Waste MODERATE No change MODERATE No change

18 Human Health SMALL No change SMALL No change

19 Socioeconomics SMALL to

MODERATE

No change MODERATE

to LARGE

No change

20 Aesthetics SMALL to

MODERATE

Reduced aesthetic

impact because cooling

towers would not be

used.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Reduced aesthetic impact

because cooling towers

would not be used.
Alternatives

June 2003 8-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 8-3. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System Impact

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System

6 Historic and

7 Archaeological

8 Resources

SMALL to

MODERATE

Less land impacted SMALL to

MODERATE

Less land impacted

9 Environmental

10 Justice

SMALL No change SMALL No change

11

12 8.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation

13

14 The environmental impacts of a natural-gas-fired plant using combined-cycle combustion

15 turbines are examined in this section for both the Ginna site and an alternate site in New York

16 state. For the Ginna site, the staff assumed that the plant would use at least part of the existing

17 once-through cooling canal system.

18

19 RG&E concluded in its ER that the Ginna site would be a reasonable site for location of a

20 natural-gas-fired generating unit. In its ER, RG&E chose to evaluate gas-fired generation using

21 combined-cycle turbines. The environmental impact analysis in the ER is based on the

22 Wawayanda Energy Center plant, near Middletown, New York. The Wawayanda Energy

23 Center plant operates at a nominal 540 MW(e), which is slightly more than the 490 MW(e) net

24 capacity of Ginna; therefore, a net capacity factor of 80 percent for the representative gas-fired

25 plant is assumed.

26

27 For construction at an alternate site, a new pipeline would need to be constructed from the plant

28 site to a supply point where a reliable supply of natural gas would be available.

29

30 The staff assumed that a replacement natural-gas-fired plant would use combined-cycle

31 combustion turbines as described by RG&E (RG&E 2002). RG&E estimates that the plant

would consume approximately 765 million m3 (27 billion ft3 32 ) of natural gas annually

33 (RG&E 2002).

34

35 Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used throughout this section

36 are from the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002). The staff reviewed this information and compared it to

37 environmental impact information in the GEIS. Although the OL renewal period is only 20

38 years, the impact of operating the natural-gas-fired alternative for 40 years is considered a

39 reasonable projection of the operating life of a natural-gas-fired plant.

40
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-26 June 2003

1 The impacts of a plant with a closed-cycle cooling system with cooling towers are discussed in

2 Section 8.2.2.1 and the impacts of a plant with once-through cooling are discussed in

3 Section 8.2.2.2.

4

5 8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

6

7 The overall impacts of the natural-gas-generating system with a closed-cycle cooling system

8 located either at the Ginna site or an alternate New York site are discussed in the following

9 sections. The magnitude of impacts at an alternate site will depend on the location of the

10 particular site selected. 

11

12  Land Use

13

14 The natural-gas-fired alternative would require converting approximately 12 ha (30 ac) to

15 industrial use for the power block, cooling towers, and infrastructure and support facilities

16 (RG&E 2002). Additional land would likely be impacted for construction of an electric power

17 transmission line, natural gas pipeline, and water intake/discharge pipelines to serve the plant. 

18 The Ginna ER assumes that these activities could impact up to 59 ha (145 ac) (RG&E 2002). 

19 Locating the facility at an alternate site may require greater land area devoted to transmission

20 rights-of-way, but potentially less for gas pipelines. At the Ginna site, there is sufficient land

21 available within the existing plant boundaries for the power block, cooling tower, and support

22 facilities. A natural gas pipeline to the Ginna site would likely follow the existing transmission

23 lines right-of-way. For any new natural-gas-fired power plant, additional land would be required

24 for natural gas wells and collection stations. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately

25 1500 ha (3600 ac) would be needed for a 1000 MW(e) plant (NRC 1996). Proportionately less

26 land would be needed for a natural-gas-fired plant replacing the 490 MW(e) from Ginna. 

27 Partially offsetting these offsite land requirements would be the elimination of the need for

28 uranium mining and processing to supply fuel for Ginna. NRC staff stated in the GEIS (NRC

29 1996) that approximately 400 ha (1000 ac) would be affected for mining and processing the

30 uranium during the operating life of a 1000 MW(e) nuclear power plant. 

31

32 Overall, land-use impacts for a natural-gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the

33 Ginna site are considered SMALL, and the impacts to land use of a new natural-gas-fired plant

34 with a closed-cycle cooling system located at an alternate site are considered to be

35 MODERATE.

36

37  Ecology

38

39 There would be ecological impacts related to habitat loss and cooling tower drift associated with

40 siting of the gas-fired plant. If needed, there would also be temporary ecological impacts

41 associated with bringing a new underground gas pipeline and/or electric power transmission
Alternatives

June 2003 8-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 line to the site. Ecological impacts would depend on the nature of the land converted for the

2 plant and the possible need for a new transmission line and/or gas pipeline. To accommodate

3 a gas-fired plant at the Ginna site, a 26-km (16-mi) gas supply pipeline would need to be

4 constructed, which, assuming a construction right-of-way of 75 feet, could disrupt 59 ha (145

5 ac) of terrestrial habitat. Ecological impacts to the plant site and utility easements could include

6 impacts on threatened or endangered species, wildlife habitat loss and reduced productivity,

7 habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Cooling makeup water intake

8 and discharge could impact aquatic resources. There would be some impact on terrestrial

9 ecology from drift from the cooling towers. Because it would use existing site land areas and

10 infrastructure, a new natural-gas-fired plant with closed-cycle cooling at the Ginna site is

11 considered to have a SMALL impact on ecological resources. A new natural-gas-fired plant

12 with closed-cycle cooling at an alternate site will have SMALL to MODERATE impacts on

13 ecological resources.

14

15  Water Use and Quality

16

17 Natural-gas-fired generation at the Ginna site would likely use water from Lake Ontario for

18 cooling. It is possible that some of the existing intake and discharge structures could be used,

19 but the construction of additional cooling infrastructure would be needed to accommodate a

20 closed-cycle system. Plant discharges would consist mostly of cooling tower blowdown,

21 characterized primarily by an increased temperature and concentration of dissolved solids

22 relative to the receiving water body and intermittent low concentrations of biocides (e.g.,

23 chlorine). Treated process waste streams and sanitary wastewater may also be discharged. 

24 All discharges would be regulated by NYSDEC through an SPDES permit. There would be a

25 consumptive use of water due to evaporation from the cooling towers. Some erosion and

26 sedimentation would likely occur during construction (NRC 1996). The staff considers the

27 impacts to surface-water use and quality of a new natural-gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle

28 cooling system located at the Ginna site to be SMALL.

29

30 Cooling water at an alternate site would likely be withdrawn from a surface-water body and

31 would be regulated by permit. Depending on the source water body, the impacts of water use

32 for cooling system makeup water and the effects on water quality due to cooling tower

33 blowdown could have noticeable impacts. Therefore, the staff considers the impacts of a new

34 natural-gas-fired plant utilizing a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site to be SMALL

35 to MODERATE.

36

37 Use of groundwater at the Ginna site is unlikely, but is possible for a natural-gas-fired plant at

38 an alternate site. Groundwater withdrawal could require a permit. Overall, impacts to

39 groundwater use and quality of a new gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the

40 Ginna site are considered SMALL and the impacts to groundwater use and quality of such a
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-28 June 2003

1 plant at an alternate site are considered SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the volume of

2 groundwater withdrawn.

3

4  Air Quality

5

6 Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. The gas-fired alternative would release similar

7 types of emissions, but in lesser quantities than the coal-fired alternative.

8

9 A new gas-fired generating plant would likely need a PSD permit and an operating permit under

10 the Clean Air Act. A new combined-cycle, natural-gas-fired power plant would also be subject

11 to the new source performance standards for such units specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts

Da and GG. These regulations establish emission limits for particulates, opacity, SO2, and NOx 12 . 

13 The facility would be designed to meet BACT or LAER standards, as applicable, for control of

14 criteria air emissions.

15

16 The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51,

17 Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in

18 areas designated as attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. All of the RG&E

19 preferred and potential power plant sites (RG&E 2002) are in areas that are designated as

20 attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants.

21

22 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing

23 future impairment of visibility and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class

24 I Federal areas when impairment results from man-made air pollution. In addition, EPA

25 regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a state, the

26 state must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural

27 visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in

28 visibility for the most-impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no

29 degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period [40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)].

30

31 RG&E estimates that a natural-gas-fired plant equipped with appropriate pollution control

32 technology would have the following emissions (RG&E 2002):

33

34  sulfur oxides – 27 MT/yr (30 tons/yr)

35

36  nitrogen oxides – 86 MT/yr (95 tons/yr)

37

38  carbon monoxide – 53 MT/yr (58 tons/yr)

39

  PM10 40 particulates – 100 MT/yr (110 tons/yr).

41
Alternatives

June 2003 8-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 A natural-gas-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that could

2 contribute to global warming.

3

4 In December 2000, the EPA issued regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants

5 from electric utility steam-generating units (EPA 2000a). Natural-gas-fired power plants were

6 found by EPA to emit arsenic, formaldehyde, and nickel (EPA 2000a). Unlike coal- and oil-fired

7 plants, EPA did not determine that regulation of emissions of hazardous air pollutants from

8 natural-gas-fired power plants should be regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

9

10 Construction activities would result in temporary fugitive dust. Exhaust emissions would also

11 come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process.

12

13 Impacts of emissions from a gas-fired plant would be clearly noticeable, but would not be

14 sufficient to destabilize air resources as a whole. The overall air-quality impact for a new

15 natural-gas-generating plant sited at either the Ginna site or an alternate site in New York State

16 is considered MODERATE.

17

18  Waste

19

20 In the GEIS the staff concluded that waste generation from gas-fired technology would be

21 minimal (NRC 1996). Gas firing results in few combustion by-products because of the clean

22 nature of the fuel. Other than spent SCR catalyst, waste generation at an operating gas-fired

23 plant would be largely limited to typical office wastes. Construction-related debris would be

24 generated during construction activities. Overall, the waste impacts are considered to be

25 SMALL for a natural-gas-fired plant located at either the Ginna site or an alternate site.

26

27  Human Health

28

29 In the GEIS, the staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health risks from naturalgas-fired plants (NRC 1996). The risk may be attributable to NOx 30 emissions that contribute to

31 ozone formation, which in turn contributes to health risks. For a plant sited in New York, NOx

32 emissions would be regulated by NYSDEC. Human health effects are expected to be

33 undetectable or sufficiently minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any

34 important attribute of the resource. Overall, the impacts on human health of a natural-gas-fired

35 plant at either the Ginna site or an alternate site are considered SMALL.

36

37  Socioeconomics

38

39 Construction of a natural-gas-fired plant would take approximately two years. Peak

40 employment could be up to 420 workers (RG&E 2002). The staff assumed that construction

41 would take place while Ginna continues operation and would be completed by the time Ginna
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-30 June 2003

1 permanently ceases operations. During construction, the communities immediately surrounding

2 the plant site would experience demands on housing and public services that could have

3 SMALL to MODERATE impacts. These impacts would be tempered by construction workers

4 commuting to the site from more distant communities. After construction, the communities

5 would be affected by the loss of jobs. The current Ginna workforce (500 workers) would

6 decline through a decommissioning period to a minimal maintenance size. The new natural7 gas-fired plant would provide a new tax base at an alternate site and provide approximately 25

8 permanent jobs (RG&E 2002). Siting at an alternate site in New York state would result in the

9 loss of the nuclear plant tax base in Wayne County and associated employment. These losses

10 would have SMALL to MODERATE socioeconomic impacts, given the fact that Ginna provides

11 less than 10 percent of the total revenue in Wayne County and slightly over 10 percent of the

12 total revenue in the town of Ontario and the Wayne Central School District (Section 8.1.7).

13

14 In the GEIS, the staff concluded that socioeconomic impacts from constructing a natural-gas15 fired plant would not be very noticeable and that the small operational workforce would have the

16 lowest socioeconomic impacts of any nonrenewable technology (NRC 1996).

17

18 Compared to the coal-fired and nuclear alternatives, the smaller size of the construction

19 workforce, the shorter construction time frame, and the smaller size of the operations workforce

20 would mitigate socioeconomic impacts.

21

22 Transportation impacts associated with construction personnel commuting to the plant site

23 would depend on the population density and transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the

24 site. The impacts can be classified as MODERATE. Impacts associated with operating

25 personnel commuting to the plant site would be SMALL.

26

27 Overall, socioeconomic impacts resulting from construction of a natural-gas-fired plant either at

28 the Ginna site or at an alternate site would be SMALL to MODERATE.

29

30  Aesthetics

31

32 The turbine buildings, exhaust stacks (approximately 61 m [200 ft] tall), cooling towers, and the

33 plume from the cooling towers would be visible from offsite during daylight hours. The gas

34 pipeline compressors also would be visible. Noise and light from the plant would be detectable

35 offsite. If a new electric power transmission line is needed, the aesthetic impact at an alternate

36 site could be LARGE. Aesthetic impacts would be mitigated if the plant were located in an

37 industrial area adjacent to other power plants. Overall, the aesthetic impacts associated with a

38 replacement natural-gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at either the Ginna site

39 or an alternate site in New York state are categorized as MODERATE to LARGE, with site40 specific factors determining the final categorization.

41
Alternatives

June 2003 8-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  Historic and Archaeological Resources

2

3 An historic and archaeological resource inventory would likely be needed for any onsite

4 property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to

5 support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field resources, identification and

6 recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of adverse

7 effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant

8 site.

9

10 Before construction, studies would likely be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation

11 of the potential impacts of new plant construction on historic and archaeological resources. 

12 The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant

13 site and along associated rights-of-way where new construction would occur (e.g., roads,

14 transmission and pipeline rights-of-way, or other rights-of-way). Impacts to historic and

15 archaeological resources can be managed and mitigated to a certain extent under current laws

16 and regulations. Therefore, impacts to historical and archaeological resources from a natural17 gas-fired plant are considered to be SMALL to MODERATE.

18

19  Environmental Justice

20

21 Environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement

22 natural-gas-fired plant built at an alternate site in New York state would depend upon the site

23 chosen and the nearby population distribution. Some impacts on housing availability and prices

24 during construction might occur, and this could disproportionately affect minority and low25 income populations. Closure of Ginna would result in the loss of approximately 500 operating

26 jobs. Resulting economic conditions could reduce employment prospects for minority or low27 income populations. However, Ginna is located in a relatively urban area with many

28 employment possibilities. Wayne County would also experience a loss of property tax revenue,

29 which could affect its ability to provide services and programs. However, these losses would

30 likely have SMALL environmental justice impacts, given the moderate proportion of the tax base

31 in Wayne County attributable to Ginna (Section 8.1.3) considered. Overall, impacts of a new

32 natural-gas-fired plant at either the Ginna or an alternate site are considered to be SMALL.

33

34  Summary

35

36 The environmental impacts of a new gas-fired electrical power generation facility with closed37 cycle cooling are summarized in Table 8-4.

38

39
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-32 June 2003

1 Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Using

2 Closed-Cycle Cooling at an Alternate Site in New York State

3

4 Ginna Site Alternate Site

5 Impact

6 Category Impact Comments Impact Comment

7 Land Use SMALL 12 ha (30 ac) of

existing site land for

power blocks, office,

roads, and parking

areas. Additional

impact of up to

approximately 59 ha

(145 ac) for

construction of

underground gas

piping.

MODERATE 12 ha (30 ac) for power block,

switchyard, cooling towers, and

infrastructure support facilities. 

Additional impact of up to 53

ha (130 acres) for electric

power transmission line,

natural gas pipeline, and

cooling-water intake/discharge

piping.

8 Ecology SMALL Uses previouslydisturbed areas at

current Ginna site. 

Some effects from gas

pipeline construction. 

Impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling

tower drift.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on location

and ecology of the site,

surface-water body used for

intake and discharge, and

possible electric power

transmission and pipeline

routes; potential habitat loss

and fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity; impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling tower

drift.

9 Surface-Water

10 Use and

11 Quality

SMALL Uses part of the

existing once-through

cooling system. 

Discharge of cooling

tower blowdown will

have impacts.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume of

water withdrawal and

discharge, the constituents in

the discharge water, and the

characteristics of the surface

water body. Discharge of

cooling tower blowdown will

have impacts.

12 Groundwater

13 Use and

14 Quality

SMALL Use of groundwater

very unlikely.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts will depend on the

quality of water withdrawn.
Alternatives

June 2003 8-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 8-4. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact Comments Impact Comment

6 Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides

  27 MT/yr

(30 tons/yr)

Nitrogen oxides

  86 MT/yr

(95 tons/yr)

Carbon monoxide

  53 MT/yr

(58 tons/yr)

PM10 particulates

  100 MT/yr

(110 tons/yr)

Some hazardous air

pollutants.

MODERATE Same as Ginna site.

7 Waste SMALL Minimal waste product

from fuel combustion.

SMALL Same as Ginna site.

8 Human Health SMALL Impacts considered to

be minor.

SMALL Same as Ginna site.

9 Socio10 economicsSMALL to

MODERATE

During construction

impacts would be

SMALL to

MODERATE. Up to

420 additional workers

during the peak of the

two-year construction

period, followed by

reduction from current

Ginna workforce from

500 to 25; tax base

preserved. Impacts

during operation would

be SMALL.

SMALL to

MODERATE

During construction impacts

would be SMALL to

MODERATE. Up to

420 additional workers during

the peak of the two-year

construction period. Wayne

County would experience loss

of the tax base and

employment associated with

Ginna with potentially SMALL

impacts. Impacts during

operation would be SMALL. 

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers would be

MODERATE.

11 Aesthetics MODERATE

to LARGE

Aesthetic impact due to

impact of plant unit,

and cooling towers and

associated plume

stacks.

MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE impact from plant,

stacks, and cooling towers and

associated plumes. Additional

impact that could be LARGE if

a new electric power

transmission line is needed.

12 Historic and

13 Archaeological

14 Resources

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts can generally

be managed or

mitigated.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Same as Ginna site.
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-34 June 2003

1 Table 8-4. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact Comments Impact Comment

6 Environmental

7 Justice

SMALL Impacts on minority

and low-income

communities should be

similar to those

experienced by the

population as a whole. 

Some impacts on

housing may occur

during construction;

loss of Ginna operating

jobs on minority and

low-income populations

would most likely be

SMALL due to the

proximity of the plant to

diverse urban job

market.

SMALL Impacts at alternate site vary

depending on population

distribution and makeup at site. 

Wayne County would lose tax

revenue and jobs, however the

impacts on minority and lowincome populations would

likely be SMALL.

8

9 8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System

10

11 The environmental impacts of constructing a natural-gas-fired generation system at an alternate

12 site in New York state using a once-through cooling system are similar to the impacts for a

13 natural-gas-fired plant using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. However, there are

14 some environmental differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. 

15 Table 8-5 summarizes the incremental differences.

16

17
Alternatives

June 2003 8-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation with

2 Once-Through Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or at an

3 Alternate Site in New York State

4

5 Ginna Site Alternate Site

6 Impact Category Impact

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System Impact

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System

7 Land Use SMALL to

MODERATE

10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac)

less land required

because cooling towers

and associated

infrastructure are not

needed.

SMALL to

MODERATE

10 to 12 ha (25 to

30 ac) less land

required because

cooling towers and

associated

infrastructure are not

needed.

8 Ecology SMALL Less terrestrial habitat

lost and cooling tower

effects eliminated. 

Increased water

withdrawal, but aquatic

impact would be similar

to current Ginna

operations.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact would depend

on ecology at the

site. No impact to

terrestrial ecology

from cooling tower

drift. Increased water

withdrawal and

possible greater

impact to aquatic

ecology.

9 Surface-Water Use 

10 and Quality

SMALL No discharge of cooling

tower blowdown

containing dissolved

solids. Increased water

withdrawal would be

insignificant to Lake

Ontario.

SMALL to

MODERATE

No discharge of

cooling tower

blowdown. 

Increased water

withdrawal and more

thermal load on

receiving body of

water.

11 Groundwater Use 

12 and Quality

SMALL No change SMALL It is unlikely that

groundwater would

be used for oncethrough cooling, but

could be used for

sanitary water.

13 Air Quality MODERATE No change MODERATE No change

14 Waste SMALL No change SMALL No change

15 Human Health SMALL No change SMALL No change

16 Socioeconomics SMALL to

MODERATE

No change SMALL to

MODERATE

No change
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-36 June 2003

1 Table 8-5. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact Category Impact

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System Impact

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System

5 Aesthetics SMALL to

MODERATE

Reduced aesthetic

impact because cooling

towers would not be

used.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Reduced aesthetic

impact because

cooling towers would

not be used.

6 Historic and

7 Archaeological

8 Resources

SMALL to

MODERATE

Less land affected. SMALL to

MODERATE

Less land affected.

9 Environmental Justice SMALL No change SMALL No change

10

11 8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation

12

13 Since 1997, the NRC has certified three new standard designs for nuclear power plants under

14 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B. These designs are the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor

15 (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A), the System 80+ Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix B), and the

16 AP600 Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix C). All of these plants are light-water reactors. 

17 Although no applications for a construction permit or a combined license based on these

18 certified designs have been submitted to the NRC, the submission of the design certification

19 applications indicates continuing interest in the possibility of licensing new nuclear power plants. 

20 Recent volatility in prices of natural gas and electricity have made new nuclear power plant

21 construction more attractive from a cost standpoint. Additionally, Entergy Nuclear, Exelon, and

22 Dominion Power recently announced that they will submit applications for early site permits for

23 new advanced nuclear power plants under the procedures in 10 CFR Part 52 Subpart A

24 (NEI 2002). Therefore, construction of a new nuclear power plant, either at the Ginna site or at

25 an alternate site in New York state using both closed- and open-cycle cooling is considered in

26 this section. The staff assumed that the new nuclear plant would have a 40-year lifetime.

27

28 The NRC has summarized environmental data associated with the uranium fuel cycle in

29 Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are representative of the impacts

30 that would be associated with a replacement nuclear power plant built to one of the certified

31 designs. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are for a 1000-MW(e) reactor and would need to be

32 adjusted to reflect replacement of Ginna, which has a capacity of 490 MW(e). The

33 environmental impacts associated with transporting fuel and waste to and from a light-water34 cooled nuclear power reactor are summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The summary of

35 NRC’s findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants in Table B-1 of

36 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, is also relevant, although not directly applicable, for

37 consideration of environmental impacts associated with the operation of a replacement nuclear
Alternatives

June 2003 8-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 power plant. Additional environmental impact information for a replacement nuclear power

2 plant using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers is presented in Section 8.2.3.1 and using

3 once-through cooling in Section 8.2.3.2.

4

5 8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

6

7 The overall impacts of a new nuclear electrical-generating plant utilizing a closed-cycle cooling

8 system at the Ginna site or an alternate site are discussed in the following sections. The extent

9 of impacts at an alternate site will depend on the location of the particular site selected.

10

11  Land Use

12

13 According to the GEIS, land-use requirements for a new nuclear unit at an alternate site would

14 be approximately 200 to 400 ha (500 to 1000 ac) (NRC 1996). Additional land could be needed

15 for an electric power transmission line, a rail spur to bring construction materials to the plant

16 site, and/or pipelines to supply cooling-water intake and discharge. Depending particularly on

17 transmission line routing, siting a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle cooling at an alternate site

18 would result in MODERATE to LARGE land-use impacts.

19

20 If a new nuclear plant were to be constructed at the Ginna site, the staff assumed that the

21 existing facilities would be used to the extent practicable, reducing the amount of new

22 construction that would be required. Specifically, the staff assumed that a replacement nuclear

23 power plant would use the existing cooling system, switchyard, offices, and transmission right24 of-way. A replacement nuclear unit constructed at the Ginna site would be expected to require

25 less land area than a unit at a greenfield site, but would still require at least several hundred

26 acres. It is not clear whether there is enough usable land for a replacement unit at the Ginna

27 site, and additional land beyond the current Ginna boundary may be needed to construct a new

28 nuclear power plant while the current Ginna plant continues to operate. Therefore, the siting of

29 a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle cooling at the Ginna site would likely result in a

30 MODERATE to LARGE impact. The impact would be greater than the OL renewal alternative.

31

32 There would be no net change in land needed for uranium mining because land needed to

33 support the new nuclear plant would offset land needed to supply uranium for fuel for the

34 existing Ginna reactor.

35

36  Ecology

37

38 A new nuclear plant at an alternate site would introduce construction impacts and new

39 incremental operational impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the

40 impacts likely would alter the ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced

41 productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Intake and
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-38 June 2003

1 discharge of cooling water from a nearby surface-water body could have adverse aquatic

2 resource impacts. If needed, construction and maintenance of an electric power transmission

3 line would have ecological impacts. There would be some impact on terrestrial ecology from

4 cooling tower drift. Overall, the ecological impacts of a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle

5 cooling at an alternate site would be MODERATE to LARGE.

6

7 A new nuclear plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the Ginna site would also result in

8 impacts to the ecology of the site. Most of the land area that would be used for a new plant at

9 the Ginna site is currently used for apple orchards, but the more natural wooded areas of the

10 site also would be adversely impacted. There would be some impact on terrestrial ecology from

11 cooling tower drift. Overall, the ecological impacts of a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle

12 cooling at the Ginna site would be MODERATE and would be greater that renewal of the

13 Ginna OL.

14

15  Water Use and Quality

16

17 New nuclear generation at the Ginna site would likely use water from Lake Ontario for cooling. 

18 It is possible that some of the existing intake and discharge structures could be used, but the

19 construction of additional cooling infrastructure would be needed to accommodate a closed20 cycle system. Plant discharges would consist mostly of cooling tower blowdown, characterized

21 primarily by an increased temperature and concentration of dissolved solids relative to the

22 receiving water body and intermittent low concentrations of biocides (e.g., chlorine). Treated

23 process waste streams and sanitary wastewater may also be discharged. All discharges would

24 be regulated by NYSDEC through an SPDES permit. There would be a consumptive use of

25 water due to evaporation from the cooling towers. Some erosion and sedimentation would

26 likely occur during construction (NRC 1996). The staff considers the impacts to surface-water

27 use and quality of a new nuclear plant with a closed-cycle cooling system located at the Ginna

28 site to be SMALL.

29

30 Cooling water at an alternate site would likely be withdrawn from a surface-water body and

31 would be regulated by permit. Depending on the source water body, the impacts of water use

32 for cooling system makeup water and the effects on water quality due to cooling tower

33 blowdown could have noticeable impacts. Therefore, the staff considers the impacts of a new

34 nuclear plant utilizing a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site to be SMALL to

35 MODERATE.

36

37 Use of groundwater at the Ginna site is unlikely, but is possible for a nuclear plant at an

38 alternate site. Groundwater withdrawal could require a permit. Overall, impacts to groundwater

39 use and quality of a new nuclear plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the Ginna site are

40 considered SMALL and the impacts to groundwater use and quality of such a plant at an
Alternatives

June 2003 8-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 alternate site are considered SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the volume of groundwater

2 withdrawn.

3

4  Air Quality

5

6 Construction of a new nuclear plant at either the Ginna site or at an alternate site would result in

7 fugitive dust emissions during the construction process. Exhaust emissions would come from

8 vehicles and motorized equipment during the construction process and after operation

9 commences. An operating nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with diesel

10 generators. These emissions would be regulated by NYSDEC. Overall, emissions and

11 associated impacts to air quality of a nuclear plant at either the Ginna site or an alternate site

12 are considered SMALL.

13

14  Waste

15

16 The waste impacts associated with operation of a nuclear power plant either at the Ginna site or

17 at an alternate site are set forth in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. In

18 addition to the impacts shown in Table B-1, construction-related debris would be generated

19 during construction activities and removed to an appropriate disposal site. Overall, waste

20 impacts of a new nuclear plant at either the Ginna or alternate sites are considered SMALL.

21

22  Human Health

23

24 Human health impacts for an operating nuclear power plant at either the Ginna site or an

25 alternate site are set forth in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Overall,

26 human health impacts of a new nuclear power plant at either the Ginna site or an alternate site

27 are considered SMALL.

28

29  Socioeconomics

30

31 The construction period and the peak workforce associated with construction of a new nuclear

32 power plant are currently unquantified (NRC 1996). In the absence of quantified data, the staff

33 assumed a construction period of 5 years and a peak workforce of 2500. The staff assumed

34 that construction would take place while the existing Ginna plant continued operation and would

35 be completed by the time Ginna permanently ceases operations. During construction, the

36 communities surrounding the plant site would experience demands on housing, transportation,

37 and public services that could have MODERATE to LARGE impacts. These impacts would be

38 tempered by construction workers commuting to the site from more distant communities. 

39 In the GEIS, the staff noted that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger

40 than at an urban site because more of the peak construction workforce would need to move to

41 the area to work (NRC 1996). Socioeconomic impacts at a rural site could be LARGE. After
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-40 June 2003

1 construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of the construction jobs. The

2 replacement nuclear unit is assumed to have an operating workforce comparable to the

3 approximately 500 workers currently working at Ginna. Transportation impacts related to

4 commuting of plant operating personnel are considered SMALL to MODERATE. If a

5 replacement nuclear unit was built at an alternate site, the communities around Ginna would

6 experience the impact of Ginna operational job loss and Wayne County would experience the

7 loss of a tax base. These losses would have SMALL to MODERATE socioeconomic impacts,

8 given the fact that Ginna provides less than 10 percent of the total revenue in Wayne County

9 and slightly over 10 percent of the total revenue in the town of Ontario and Wayne Central

10 School District (Section 8.1.7). Overall, the staff considers the potential impacts of a new

11 nuclear plant at either the Ginna or an alternate site to be MODERATE to LARGE.

12

13  Aesthetics

14

15 The containment buildings for a replacement nuclear power plant, other associated buildings,

16 the cooling towers, and the plume from the cooling towers would be visible during daylight

17 hours. Natural draft towers could be up to 160 m (520 ft) high. Mechanical draft towers could

18 be up to 30 m (100 ft) high and would also have an associated noise impact and condensate

19 plumes. Visual impacts of buildings and structures could be mitigated by landscaping and

20 selecting a color that is consistent with the environment. Visual impact at night could be

21 mitigated by reduced use of lighting and appropriate use of shielding. There would also be a

22 significant aesthetic impact if a new electric power transmission line were needed. No exhaust

23 stacks would be needed.

24

25 Noise from operation of a replacement nuclear power plant would potentially be audible offsite

26 in calm wind conditions or when the wind is blowing in the direction of the listener. Mitigation

27 measures, such as reduced or no use of outside loudspeakers, could be employed to reduce

28 noise level and keep the impact SMALL to MODERATE. Overall, the staff considers the

29 aesthetic impact of a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle cooling at the Ginna site to be

30 MODERATE to LARGE.

31

32 The aesthetic impact of a new nuclear plant with closed-cycle cooling at an alternate site would

33 depend on the site selected. If the alternate site is in an industrial area, visual and noise

34 impacts would probably be SMALL; if the alternate site were a rural greenfield site, the impacts

35 could be MODERATE to LARGE. Regardless of the alternate site location, the impact could be

36 LARGE if a lengthy new electric power transmission line is needed to connect the plant to the

37 power grid.

38
Alternatives

June 2003 8-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  Historic and Archaeological Resources

2

3 An historic and archeological resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property

4 that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to support the

5 plant would also likely need an inventory of field resources, identification and recording of

6 existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of adverse effects from

7 subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant site.

8

9 Before construction, studies would likely be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation

10 of the potential impacts of new plant construction on historic and archeological resources. The

11 studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant site

12 and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission

13 corridors, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic and archaeological resource impacts can

14 generally be managed and mitigated to a certain extent. Therefore, the staff considers the

15 impacts to historic and archeological resources of a new nuclear plant at either the Ginna or

16 alternate sites to be SMALL to MODERATE.

17

18  Environmental Justice

19

20 Environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement

21 nuclear plant built at an alternate site and would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby

22 population distribution. The environmental justice impact of replacing Ginna with a new nuclear

23 unit at the Ginna site would be SMALL. Some impacts on housing availability and prices during

24 construction might occur, and this could disproportionately affect minority and low-income

25 populations. Closure of Ginna would result in the loss of approximately 500 operating jobs. 

26 Resulting economic conditions could reduce employment prospects for minority or low-income

27 populations. However, Ginna is located near a relatively urban area with many employment

28 opportunities. Wayne County would experience a loss of property tax revenue that could affect

29 its ability to provide services and programs. However, these losses would likely have SMALL

30 environmental justice impacts, and would be similar to the no-action alternative (Section

31 8.1.10). Therefore, the staff considers the environmental justice impacts of a new nuclear plant

32 at either the Ginna site or an alternate site to be SMALL.

33

34  Summary

35

36 The staff’s conclusions regarding the environmental impacts of a new nuclear plant with closed37 cycle cooling are summarized in Table 8-6.

38
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-42 June 2003

1 Table 8-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using Closed2 Cycle Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site and at an Alternate Site

3 in New York State

4

5 Ginna Site Alternate Site

6 Impact

7 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

8 Land Use MODERATE

to LARGE

Requires approximately

200 to 400 ha (500 to

1000 ac) for the plant and

400 ha (1000 ac) for

uranium mining and

processing. May require

acquisition of adjacent

lands.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Same as Ginna site, plus

land for new transmission

line, rail spur, and cooling

water intake/discharge

pipelines. Up to 259 ha

(640 ac) assuming a

25-km (15 mi)

transmission line.

9 Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Uses undeveloped areas

at the current Ginna site. 

Impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling

tower drift.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Impact depends on

location and ecology of

the site, surface-water

body used for intake and

discharge, and electric

power transmission line

route; potential habitat

loss and fragmentation;

reduced productivity and

biological diversity;

impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling

tower drift.

10 Surface-Water

11 Use and

12 Quality

SMALL Uses existing cooling

water intake system. 

Closed-cycle system

would use less water than

current Ginna oncethrough system. 

Discharge of cooling tower

blowdown will have

impacts.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the

volume of water

withdrawn and

discharged, the

constituents in the

discharge water, and the

characteristics of the

surface-water body. 

Discharges would be

regulated by NYSDEC. 

Discharge of cooling

tower blowdown will have

impacts.
Alternatives

June 2003 8-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 8-6. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

6 Groundwater

7 Use and

8 Quality

SMALL No groundwater used at

the Ginna site.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Groundwater may be

used. Impacts SMALL if

only used for potable

water, impacts could be 

SMALL to MODERATE,

depending on the site or

aquifer if groundwater is

used as makeup cooling

water.

9 Air Quality SMALL Fugitive dust emissions

and emissions from

vehicles and equipment

during construction. Small

amounts of emissions

from diesel generators,

vehicles, and possibly

other sources during

operation.

SMALL Same as at Ginna site.

10 Waste SMALL Waste impacts for an

operating nuclear power

plant are set forth in

10 CFR Part 51,

Appendix B, Table B-1. 

Debris would be

generated and removed

during construction.

SMALL Same as at Ginna site.

11 Human Health SMALL Human health impacts for

an operating nuclear

power plant are set forth in

10 CFR Part 51,

Appendix B, Table B-1.

SMALL Same as at Ginna site.
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-44 June 2003

1 Table 8-6. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

6 Socio7 economicsMODERATE

to LARGE

During construction,

impacts would be SMALL

to MODERATE. Up to

2500 workers during the

peak of the 5-year

construction period. 

Operating workforce

assumed to be similar to

Ginna. Tax base would

be preserved. Impacts

during operation would be

SMALL.

Transportation impacts

associated with

commuting construction

workers could be

MODERATE to LARGE. 

Transportation impacts

during operation would be

SMALL.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Construction impacts

depend on location. 

Impacts at a rural location

could be LARGE.

Wayne County would

experience loss of tax

base and employment

with SMALL impacts. 

However, tax base and

employment at alternate

site would increase with

SMALL to LARGE

impacts, depending on

the location.

Transportation impacts

would be similar to the

Ginna site.

8 Aesthetics MODERATE

to LARGE

Containment buildings,

cooling towers, and the

plumes from cooling

towers would be visible

from offsite. No exhaust

stacks would be needed. 

Daytime visual impact

could be mitigated by

landscaping and

appropriate color selection

for buildings. Visual

impact at night could be

mitigated by reduced use

of lighting and appropriate

shielding. Noise impacts

would be relatively small

and could be mitigated.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts would depend on

the characteristics of the

alternate site. Visual and

noise impacts could be

mitigated as at the Ginna

site. Impacts could be

SMALL if the plant is

located adjacent to an

industrial area.

Potential impacts will be

greater if a new electric

power transmission line

is needed.

Aesthetic impacts could

be LARGE if a nonindustrial, greenfield site

is selected.
Alternatives

June 2003 8-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 8-6. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

6 Historic and

7 Archaeological

8 Resources

SMALL Impacts can generally be

managed or mitigated.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Same as Ginna site.

9 Environmental

10 Justice

SMALL Impacts on minority and

low-income populations

should be similar to those

experienced by the

population as a whole. 

Some impacts on housing

may occur during

construction.

SMALL Impacts will vary

depending on population

distribution and makeup

at the site. Wayne

County would lose tax

revenue and jobs,

however the impacts on

minority and low-income

population would likely be

SMALL.

11

12 8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System

13

14 The environmental impacts of constructing a nuclear power plant, either at the Ginna site or at

15 an alternate site in New York state using once-through cooling, are similar to the impacts for a

16 nuclear power plant using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. However, there are some

17 differences in the environmental impacts between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling

18 systems. In those impact categories that are related to land area requirements such as land

19 use, terrestrial ecology, and cultural resources, the impacts are likely to be smaller if the site

20 uses a once-through cooling system rather than a closed-cycle cooling system. However, the

21 impacts of a plant with a once-through cooling system are likely to be greater than a plant with

22 a closed-cycle cooling system in the areas of water use and aquatic ecology due to the need for

23 greater quantities of cooling water. Table 8-7 summarizes the incremental differences.

24

25
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-46 June 2003

1 Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using Once2 Through Cooling at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site or at an Alternate

3 Site in New York State

4

5 Ginna Site Alternate Site

6 Impact

7 Category Impact

Comparison with 

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System Impact

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System

8 Land Use MODERATE to

LARGE

10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac)

less land required

because cooling towers

and associated

infrastructure are not

needed.

MODERATE

to LARGE

10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac)

less land required because

cooling towers and

associated infrastructure

are not needed.

9 Ecology MODERATE Slightly less terrestrial

habitat loss, no cooling

tower drift, but increase

water usage with

increased aquatic

ecology impacts.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Impact would depend on

ecology at the site. No

impact to terrestrial ecology

from cooling tower drift. 

Increased water withdrawal

with possible greater

impact to aquatic ecology.

10 Surface-Water

11 Use

12 and Quality

SMALL No discharge of cooling

tower blowdown. 

Increased water

withdrawal and more

thermal load on

receiving body of water,

but similar to current

Ginna plant.

SMALL to

MODERATE

No discharge of cooling

tower blowdown. 

Increased water withdrawal

and more thermal load on

receiving body of water.

13 Groundwater

14 Use

15 and Quality

SMALL No change SMALL No change

16 Air Quality SMALL No change SMALL No change

17 Waste SMALL No change SMALL No change

18 Human Health SMALL No change SMALL No change

19 Socioeconomics MODERATE to

LARGE

No change MODERATE

to LARGE

No change

20 Aesthetics SMALL Reduced aesthetic

impact because cooling

towers would not be

used.

SMALL to

LARGE

Reduced aesthetic impact

because cooling towers

would not be used, but

impacts could still be large

if lengthy transmission line

is required.
Alternatives

June 2003 8-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 8-7. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact

Comparison with 

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System Impact

Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Cooling

System

6 Historic and

7 Archaeological

8 Resources

SMALL to

MODERATE

Less land impacted SMALL to

MODERATE

Less land impacted.

9 Environmental

10 Justice

SMALL No change SMALL No change

11

12 8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power

13

14 If available, purchased power from other sources could potentially obviate the need to renew

15 the Ginna OL. The New York State Energy Plan is designed to promote competition in energy

16 supply markets by facilitating participation by non-utility suppliers. A regulatory structure is in

17 place to appropriately anticipate and meet electricity demands, and RG&E has restructured to

18 enable participation in the resulting wholesale electricity market. As an additional facet of this

19 restructuring effort, retail customers in RG&E’s service territory may choose among RG&E and

20 other sources (i.e., qualified energy service companies) to supply their power, resulting in

21 uncertainty with regard to future RG&E load obligations. In view of these conditions, RG&E

22 assumed in the ER that adequate supplies of electricity would be available, and that purchased

23 power would be a reasonable alternative to meet its load requirements in the event the OL for

24 Ginna is not renewed.

25

26 During 2001, RG&E supplied 9803 GWh of electricity to its customers, 25 percent of which was

27 purchased from other generators. The source of the purchased power that would potentially

28 replace Ginna’s power is speculative, but may reasonably include new generating facilities

29 developed within RG&E's service territory, elsewhere in the state, or neighboring power pool

30 jurisdictions. The technologies that would be used to generate this purchased power are

31 similarly conjectural. However, considering the current and projected development of additional

32 generating capabilities in New York state noted above, natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle units,

33 such as those described in Section 8.2, would be the most likely candidate.

34

35 RG&E does not anticipate that any additional transmission infrastructure would be needed in

36 the event RG&E purchased power to replace the Ginna generating capacity. From a local

37 perspective, loss of Ginna would not result in a load pocket that would require construction of

38 new transmission lines, although RG&E expects that planned reinforcement of its 110-kilovolt

39 distribution system would be implemented sooner to ensure local system stability. From a

40 regional perspective, New York state’s interconnected transmission system is highly reliable,
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-48 June 2003

1 and the market-driven process for generation addition in the state is expected to have a positive

2 impact on overall system reliability. The traditional strain on the New York state transmission

3 system is west-to-east as a result of relatively low-cost generation in western upstate New York

4 and higher demand in the east and downstate. As noted by a recent study sponsored by the

5 New York Independent System Operator (Sanford et al. 2001), power imports from New

6 England in the next few years are expected to relieve this strain in the near term, and the

7 addition of new generation within the state is expected to reduce the frequency of encountering

8 transmission constraints in the future.

9

10 Imported power from Canada or Mexico is unlikely to be available for replacement of the Ginna

11 generating capacity. In Canada, 62 percent of the country’s electricity capacity is derived from

12 renewable energy sources, principally hydropower (DOE/EIA 2002). Canada has plans to

13 continue developing hydroelectric power, but the plans generally do not include large-scale

14 projects (DOE/EIA 2002). Canada’s nuclear generation capacity is projected to increase

15 by 2020, but its share of electric power generation in Canada is projected to decrease from

16 14 percent currently to 13 percent by 2020 (DOE/EIA 2002). EIA projects that total gross U.S.

17 imports of electricity from Canada and Mexico will gradually increase from 38.5 billion kWh in

18 year 2001 to 48.3 billion kWh in year 2005 and then gradually decrease to 24.4 billion kWh in

19 year 2020 (DOE/EIA 2003). On balance, it appears unlikely that electricity imported from

20 Canada or Mexico would be able to replace the Ginna generating capacity.

21

22 If power to replace Ginna generating capacity were to be purchased from sources within the

23 United States or a foreign country, the generating technology likely would be one of those

24 described in this SEIS and in the GEIS (probably coal, natural gas, or nuclear). The description

25 of the environmental impacts of other technologies in Chapter 8 of the GEIS is representative of

26 the impacts associated with the purchased electrical power alternative to renewal of the Ginna

27 OL. Under the purchased power alternative, the environmental impacts of imported power

28 would still occur, but would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or another country.

29

30 The staff has assumed that any environmental impacts associated with the production of

31 purchased power would be evaluated under separate NEPA or comparable environmental

32 analyses, and therefore do not need to be reconsidered in relation to the Ginna OL renewal.

33

34 8.2.5 Other Alternatives

35

36 Other generation technologies are discussed in the following sections. As described in the

37 following sections, none of these alternatives is considered feasible as a replacement for the

38 490 MW(e) base-load capacity of Ginna.

39
Alternatives

June 2003 8-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation

2

3 The EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of the new generation capacity in

4 the United States through the year 2025 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies

5 compared to other available technologies (DOE/EIA 2003). Oil-fired operation is more

6 expensive than coal, natural gas, or nuclear generation alternatives. In addition, future

7 increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation increasingly more expensive

8 than other generation alternatives. The high cost of oil has prompted a steady decline in its use

9 for electricity generation. In Section 8.3.11 of the GEIS, the staff estimated that construction of

10 a 1000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 49 ha (120 ac) (NRC 1996). Operation of oil11 fired plants would have environmental impacts (including impacts on the aquatic environment

12 and air) that would be similar to those from a coal-fired plant (Section 8.2.1).

13

14 8.2.5.2 Wind Power

15

16 Most of western New York is in wind power Class 2 or 3 regions (average wind speeds at 9-m

17 [30-ft] elevation of 4.4 to 5.6 m/s [9.8 to 12.5 mph]) (DOE 2002a). In general, Class 3 or higher

18 can be used for commercial power production, but wind turbines are considered economical in

19 wind power Classes 4 through 7 (average wind speeds of 5.6 to 9.4 m/s [12.5 to 21.1 mph])

20 (DOE 2002a). Wind turbines typically operate at a 25 to 35 percent capacity factor compared

21 to 80 to 95 percent for a base-load plant (NWPPC 2000). The largest commercially available

22 wind turbines are in the range of 1 MW to 1.5 MW, therefore at least 327 to 490 units would be

23 required to replace the Ginna generating capacity. Given the intermittent nature of the wind

24 resource (perhaps 30 to 35 percent availability), approximately three times this number would

25 be required to replace the KWh generated by Ginna.

26

27 As of January 2003, there were approximately 48 MW of grid-connected wind power facilities in

28 New York state, with an additional 410 MW of additional capacity in various stages of planning

29 (AWEA 2003). Statewide, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

30 (NYSERDA) estimates that there is a potential for approximately 17,000 MW of installed

31 capacity, of which approximately 3200 MW would be available for the peak summer load

32 (NYSERDA 2002). Access to many of the best wind power sites would require extensive road

33 building, as well as clearing (for towers and blades) and leveling (for the tower bases and

34 associated facilities) in steep terrain. Also, many of the best quality wind sites are on ridges

35 and hilltops that could have greater archaeological sensitivity than surrounding areas. For

36 these reasons development of large-scale, land-based wind-power facilities are likely to not only

37 be costly, but could have MODERATE to LARGE impacts on aesthetics, archaeological

38 resources, land use, and terrestrial ecology.

39

40 The offshore wind speeds in Lake Ontario are higher than those onshore, and could thus

41 support greater energy production than onshore facilities. Ten offshore wind power projects are
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-50 June 2003

1 currently operating in Europe, but none have been developed in the United States. The

2 European plants together provide approximately 250 MW, which is significantly less than the

3 electrical output of Ginna (BWEA 2003). For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that

4 locating a wind-energy facility on or near the Ginna site or offshore as a replacement for Ginna

5 generating capacity would not be economically feasible at this time given the current state of

6 wind energy generation technology. Development of an offshore wind-power facility could

7 impact shipping lanes, may disrupt the aquatic ecology, and would be visible for many miles,

8 resulting in considerable aesthetic impacts. These impacts could be MODERATE to LARGE.

9

10 8.2.5.3 Solar Power

11

12 Solar technologies use the sun's energy and light to provide heat and cooling, light, hot water,

13 and electricity for homes, businesses, and industry. Neither photovoltaic nor thermal solar

14 power technologies currently can compete with conventional fossil-fueled electrical generation

15 technologies in grid-connected applications due to higher capital costs per kilowatt of capacity. 

16 The average capacity factor of photovoltaic cells is about 25 percent (NRC 1996), and the

17 capacity factor for solar thermal systems is about 25 to 40 percent (NRC 1996). Energy

18 storage requirements limit the use of solar-energy systems as base-load electricity supply.

19

20 There are substantial impacts to natural resources (wildlife habitat, land-use, and aesthetic

21 impacts) from construction of solar-generating facilities. As stated in the GEIS, land

requirements are high. Approximately 7000 ha (27 mi2 22 ) for photovoltaic technology (NRC 1996)

and approximately 2850 ha (11 mi2 23 ) for solar thermal systems (NRC 1996) would be required to

24 replace the 490 MW(e) produced by Ginna. Neither type of solar electric system would fit at the

25 Ginna site, and both would have large environmental impacts at an alternate site.

26

27 The Ginna site receives less than 2.8 kWh of direct normal solar radiation per square meter per

28 day compared to greater than 7 kWh of solar radiation per square meter per day in areas of the

29 western United States such as California or Arizona, which are most promising for solar

30 technologies (DOE/EIA 2000). Because of the natural resource impacts (land and ecological),

31 the area’s relatively low rate of solar radiation, the intermittent nature of the resource in the

32 area, and the high cost, solar power is not deemed a feasible base-load alternative to renewal

33 of the Ginna OL. Some onsite-generated solar power (e.g., from rooftop photovoltaic

34 applications) may substitute for a portion of the electric power from the grid. Implementation of

35 solar generation on a scale large enough to replace the Ginna generating capacity would likely

36 result in LARGE environmental impacts.

37

38 8.2.5.4 Hydropower

39

40 New York state has an estimated 1308 MW of undeveloped hydroelectric resource

41 (INEEL 1998). This amount is greater than needed to replace the 490 MW(e) generating
Alternatives

June 2003 8-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 capacity of Ginna. However, as stated in Section 8.3.4 of the GEIS, hydropower’s percentage

2 of U.S. generating capacity is expected to decline because hydroelectric facilities have become

3 difficult to site as a result of public concern about land requirements, destruction of natural

4 habitat, and alteration of natural river courses. DOE/EIA states that potential sites for

5 hydroelectric dams have already been largely established in the United States, and

6 environmental concerns are expected to prevent the development of any new sites in the future

7 (DOE/EIA 2002). In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 200,000 ha (500,000 ac)

8 of land would be required to replace the 490 MW(e) produced by Ginna using hydroelectric

9 power (NRC 1996). Due to the relatively low amount of undeveloped hydropower resource in

10 New York state and the large land-use and related environmental and ecological resource

11 impacts associated with siting hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace Ginna, the staff

12 concludes that local hydropower is not a feasible alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL. Any

13 development of hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace Ginna would result in LARGE

14 environmental impacts.

15

16 8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy

17

18 Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for base19 load power where available. However, geothermal technology is not widely used as baseload

20 generation due to the limited geographical availability of the resource and immature status of

21 the technology (NRC 1996). As illustrated by Figure 8.4 in the GEIS, geothermal plants are

22 most likely to be sited in the western continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii where

23 hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent. There is no feasible eastern location for geothermal

24 capacity to serve as an alternative to Ginna. The staff concludes that geothermal energy is not

25 a feasible alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL.

26

27 8.2.5.6 Wood Waste

28

29 A wood-burning facility can provide base-load power and operate with an average annual

30 capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 20 to 25 percent energy conversion

31 efficiency (NRC 1996). The energy conversion efficiency of a conventional fossil-fired plant is

32 on the order of 35 percent. The fuels required are variable and site-specific. A significant

33 barrier to the use of wood waste to generate electricity is the high delivered fuel cost and high

34 construction cost per MW of generating capacity. The larger wood-waste power plants are only

35 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction

36 impact per MW of installed capacity should be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired

37 plant, although facilities using wood waste for fuel would be built at smaller scales (NRC 1996). 

38 Like coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing

39 and involve the same type of combustion equipment.

40
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-52 June 2003

1 Due to uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a base2 load generating facility, ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (e.g., soil erosion and

3 loss of wildlife habitat), and relatively low energy conversion efficiency, the staff has determined

4 that wood waste is not a feasible alternative to renewing the Ginna OL.

5

6 8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste

7

8 Municipal waste combustors incinerate waste and use the resultant heat to generate steam,

9 hot water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up to

10 90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2001). Municipal waste

11 combustors use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived

12 fuel (DOE/EIA 2001b). Mass burning technologies are most commonly used in the United

13 States. This group of technologies process raw municipal solid waste “as is,” with little or no

14 sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. The initial capital costs for municipal solid15 waste plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities. 

16 This is due to the need for specialized waste-separation and -handling equipment for municipal

17 solid waste (NRC 1996).

18

19 Growth in the municipal waste combustion industry slowed dramatically during the 1990s after

20 rapid growth during the 1980s. The slower growth was due to three primary factors: (1) the

21 Tax Reform Act of 1986, which made capital-intensive projects such as municipal waste

22 combustion facilities more expensive relative to less capital-intensive waste disposal alternative

23 such as landfills; (2) the 1994 Supreme Court decision (C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of

24 Clarkstown), which struck down local flow control ordinances that required waste to be

25 delivered to specific municipal waste combustion facilities rather than landfills with lower fees;

26 and (3) increasingly stringent environmental regulations that increased the capital cost

27 necessary to construct and maintain municipal waste combustion facilities (DOE/EIA 2001b).

28

29 Similar to the combustion of coal, municipal solid-waste combustors generate an ash residue

30 that is buried in landfills. The ash residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash

31 refers to that portion of the unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly

32 ash represents the small particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process. 

33 Fly ash is generally removed from flue-gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers

34 (DOE/EIA 2001b).

35

36 Currently, there are approximately 102 waste-to-energy plants operating in the United States. 

37 These plants generate approximately 2800 MW(e), or an average of approximately 28 MW(e)

38 per plant (IWSA 2001). Therefore, approximately 18 typical waste-to-energy plants would be

39 required to replace the 490 MW(e) base-load capacity of Ginna. Therefore, the staff concludes

40 that generating electricity from municipal solid waste would not be a feasible alternative to

41 renewal of the Ginna OL.
Alternatives

June 2003 8-53 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels

2

3 In addition to wood and municipal solid-waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling

4 electric generators, including crops, crops converted to a liquid fuel such as ethanol, and crops

5 (including wood waste) that have been converted to a gas. In the GEIS, the staff stated that

6 none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or

7 of being reliable enough to replace a base-load plant such as Ginna (NRC 1996). For these

8 reasons, such fuels do not offer a feasible alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL.

9

10 8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells

11

12 Fuel cells work without combustion and its environmental side effects. Power is produced

13 electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode and air over a cathode and

14 separating the two by an electrolyte. The only by-products are heat, water, and carbon dioxide. 

15 Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam

16 under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen.

17

18 Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. These are

19 commercially available today at a cost of approximately $4500 per kW of installed capacity

20 (DOE 2002b). Higher-temperature second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to21 electricity and thermal efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies

22 and give the second-generation fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and

23 combined-cycle operations.

24

25 DOE has a performance target that by 2003, two second-generation fuel cell technologies using

26 molten carbonate and solid oxide technology, respectively, will be commercially available in

27 sizes up to approximately 3 MW at a cost of $1000 to $1500 per kW of installed capacity

28 (DOE 2002b). For comparison, the installed capacity cost for a natural-gas-fired, combined29 cycle plant is approximately $456 per kW (DOE/EIA 2001a). As market acceptance and

30 manufacturing capacity increase, natural-gas-fueled fuel cell plants in the 50- to 100-MW range

31 are projected to become available. At the present time, however, fuel cells are not

32 economically or technologically competitive with other alternatives for base-load electricity

33 generation. Fuel cells are, consequently, not a feasible alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL.

34

35 8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement

36

37 RG&E has only one other electrical generating plant designed for base-load service – the

38 257 MW coal-burning Russell Station. RG&E has no current plans to retire that plant, and

39 stated in the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002) that it is not aware of opportunities for delayed retirement

40 available to other energy suppliers in the state. For this reason, delayed retirement of existing

41 units would not be a feasible alternative to renewal of the Ginna OL.
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-54 June 2003

1 8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation

2

3 Since the 1980s, RG&E has participated in state-wide residential, commercial, and industrial

4 programs to reduce both peak demands and daily energy consumption. These programs are

5 commonly referred to as demand-side management (DSM). State-wide, these DSM programs

6 through 2001 have resulted in a cumulative summer peak reduction of approximately 1600 MW

7 between 1999 and 2000, and additional peak demand reductions on the order of 900 to

8 1300 MW are projected in the 2004 to 2006 time frame (RG&E 2002). These DSM-induced

9 load reductions are acknowledged in load forecasts, therefore they cannot be used as credits to

10 offset the power generated by Ginna. An additional 490 MW(e) of savings, or a 38- to 54-

11 percent increase in the state-wide reduction in peak demand by 2006, would be required to

12 offset the power generated by Ginna. Therefore, the conservation option by itself is not

13 considered a reasonable replacement for the Ginna OL renewal alternative.

14

15 8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives

16

17 Even though individual alternatives might not be sufficient on their own to replace the Ginna

18 generating capacity due to the small size of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities,

19 it is conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be cost effective.

20

21 Ginna has an average net capacity of 490 MW(e). For the natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle

22 alternative, RG&E assumed one 540-MW unit in its ER as a potential replacement for Ginna. 

23 The staff used this same assumption in Section 8.2.2.

24

25 There are many possible combinations of alternatives. Table 8-8 contains a summary of the

26 environmental impacts of an assumed combination of alternatives consisting of 245 MW(e) of

27 combined-cycle, natural-gas-fired generation (one 245-MW unit) at either the Ginna site or an

28 alternate site in New York State using closed-cycle cooling, 175 MW(e) purchased from other

29 generators, 40 MW(e) produced by new wind power facilities in western New York state, and

30 30 MW(e) gained from additional DSM measures. The impacts associated with the combined31 cycle, natural-gas-fired units are based on the gas-fired generation impact assumptions

32 discussed in Section 8.2.2, adjusted for the reduced generating capacity. For the combination

33 of alternatives, the staff assumed that a replacement gas-fired plant would use the existing

34 once-through cooling system, while a gas-fired plant located at an alternative site would utilize a

35 closed-cycle cooling system. While the DSM measures would have few environmental impacts,

36 operation of the new natural-gas-fired plant would result in increased emissions (compared to

37 the OL renewal alternative) and other environmental impacts. Installation of new wind power

38 facilities would have land-use, ecology, and aesthetic impacts. The environmental impacts of

39 power generation associated with power purchased from other generators would still occur, but

40 would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or another country as discussed in

41 Section 8.2.4. The environmental impacts associated with purchased power are not shown in
Alternatives

June 2003 8-55 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 8-8. The staff concludes that it is very unlikely that the environmental impacts of any

2 reasonable combination of generating and conservation options could be reduced to the level of

3 impacts associated with renewal of the Ginna OL.

4

5 Table 8-8. Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Assumed Combination of

6 Generating (Combined-Cycle-Natural-Gas-Fired Generation, Wind Power,

7 and DSM) and Acquisition Alternatives

8

9 Ginna Site Alternate Site

10 Impact

11 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

12 Land Use SMALL to

MODERATE

8 ha (20 ac) for gas-fired

plant power block, offices,

roads, and parking areas. 

Additional impact at wind

power sites (at least 20 ha

[50 acres]). Additional

impact for construction of

an underground natural

gas pipeline, electric

power transmission line,

and cooling-water

intake/discharge piping.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Same as Ginna site.

13 Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Uses previously disturbed

areas of Ginna site, plus

gas pipeline. Habitat loss

due to development of

wind power sites could

have a MODERATE

impact. Some increase in

bird mortality at wind

towers. Impacts to

terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift. 

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on location

and ecology of the sites,

surface-water body used for

intake and discharge, and

transmission and pipeline

routes; potential habitat loss

and fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity; impacts to

terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift. Some

increase in bird mortality

associated with wind towers.
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-56 June 2003

1 Table 8-8. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

6 Surface-water

7 Use and

8 Quality

SMALL Uses part of the existing

cooling system. 

Discharge of cooling tower

blowdown will have

impacts.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume

of water withdrawal and

discharge, the constituents

in the discharge water, and

the characteristics of the

surface-water body. 

Discharge of cooling tower

blowdown will have impacts.

9 Groundwater

10 Use and

11 Quality

SMALL Use of groundwater very

unlikely.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on the

quantity of water withdrawn.

12 Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides: 13 MT/yr

(14 tons/yr)

Nitrogen oxides: 43 MT/yr

(47 tons/yr)

Carbon monoxide: 

26 MT/yr (29 tons/yr)

PM10 particulates: 

50 MT/yr (55 tons/yr)

Some hazardous air

pollutants. Additional

emissions from producers

of purchased power.

MODERATE Same as Ginna site.

13 Waste SMALL Minimal waste generated. SMALL Same as Ginna site.

14 Human Health SMALL Impacts considered to be

minor.

SMALL Same as Ginna site.

15 Socio16 economicsSMALL to

MODERATE

During construction

impacts would be SMALL

to MODERATE. Possibly

over 200 additional

workers needed during the

peak construction period

followed by reduction from

current Ginna workforce. 

Impacts during operation

would be SMALL.

MODERATE Construction impacts

depend on location, but

could be significant if

location is in a rural area. 

Wayne County would

experience loss of tax base

and employment with

potentially SMALL to

MODERATE impacts. 

Impacts during operation

would be SMALL. 

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers would be

MODERATE.
Alternatives

June 2003 8-57 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table 8-8. (contd)

2

3 Ginna Site Alternate Site

4 Impact

5 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

6 Aesthetics MODERATE SMALL aesthetic impact

due to the impact of plant

unit and stack for gas

plant (similar to Ginna

plant). Additional impact

from wind turbine towers.

MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE to LARGE

impact from wind turbine

towers as well as the gasfired plant, stacks, and

cooling towers and

associated plumes. 

Additional impact that could

be LARGE if a lengthy new

electric power transmission

line is needed.

7 Historic and

8 

9 Archaeological

10 Resources

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts can generally be

managed or mitigated. 

Wind turbines often placed

along ridge lines that may

have higher likelihood of

historic or archaeological

significance.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Same as Ginna site.

11 Environmental

12 Justice

SMALL Impacts on minority and

low-income communities

should be similar to those

experienced by the

population as a whole. 

Some impacts on housing

may occur during

construction; loss of Ginna

jobs on minority and lowincome populations most

likely SMALL due to the

proximity of the plant to a

diverse urban job market.

SMALL Impacts vary dependent on

population distribution and

makeup at site. Wayne

County would lose tax

revenue and jobs; however,

the impacts on minority and

low-income populations

would likely be SMALL.

13

14 8.3 Summary of Alternatives

15

16 The environmental impacts of the proposed action, renewal of the Ginna OL, are SMALL for all

17 impact categories (except collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

18 high-level waste and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level was not assigned). 

19 Alternative actions (i.e., no-action alternative [Section 8.1], new generation alternatives [from

20 coal, natural gas, and nuclear discussed in Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.3, respectively],
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-58 June 2003

1 purchased electrical power [Section 8.2.4], alternative technologies [discussed in Section 8.2.5],

2 and the combination of alternatives [Section 8.2.6]) were considered.

3

4 The no-action alternative would result in decommissioning Ginna and would have SMALL

5 environmental impacts for all impact categories except socioeconomics, which may have

6 SMALL to MODERATE impacts. The no-action alternative would result in a net reduction in

7 power production. The power not generated by Ginna during the license renewal term would

8 likely be replaced by (1) DSM and energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other

9 electricity providers, (3) generating alternatives other than Ginna, or (4) some combination of

10 these options. This replacement power would produce additional environmental impacts as

11 discussed in Section 8.2.

12

13 For each of the new generation alternatives (coal, natural gas, and nuclear), the environmental

14 impacts would be greater than the impacts of license renewal. For example, the land15 disturbance impacts resulting from construction of any new facility would be greater than the

16 impacts of continued operation of Ginna. The impacts of purchased electrical power would still

17 occur, but would occur elsewhere. Alternative technologies are not considered feasible at this

18 time for replacement of the Ginna base-load power and it is very unlikely that the environmental

19 impacts of any reasonable combination of generation and conservation options could be

20 reduced to the level of impacts associated with renewal of the Ginna OL.

21

22 8.4 References

23

24 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

25 Protection Against Radiation.”

26

27 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing

28 of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

29

30 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

31 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Functions.”

32

33 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

34 Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

35

36 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51,

37 “Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.”

38

39 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60,

40 “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.”

41
Alternatives

June 2003 8-59 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

2 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.”

3

4 American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2003. Wind Project Data Base. 

5 http://ww.awea.org/projects/newyork.html.

6

7 British Wind Energy Association (BWEA). 2003. Accessed at

8 http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/else.html on January 7, 2003.

9

10 C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, (U.S. Supreme Court 1994).

11

12 Clean Air Act. 42 USC. 7401, et seq.

13

14 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1977, as amended 33 USC 1251, et seq.

15 (Also known as the Clean Water Act).

16

17 Gabbard, A. 1993. ”Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger,” Oak Ridge National

18 Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed at

19 http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html on April 10, 2002.

20

21 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 1998. U.S. Hydropower

22 Resource Assessment for New York . DOE/ID-10430(NY), Idaho Falls, Idaho. Accessed at

23 http://hydropower.inel.gov/state/ny/ny.pdf on January 7, 2003.

24

25 Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2001. ”About Waste to Energy.” Accessed at

26 http://www.wte.org/waste.html on January 7, 2003.

27

28 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

29

30 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2002. 2002 State

31 Energy Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Accessed at

32 http:www.nyserda.org/sep.html on January 10, 2003.

33

34 Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 2000. ”Northwest Power Supply Adequacy/

35 Reliability Study Phase I Report.” Accessed at

36 http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2000/2000-4a.pdf on January 7, 2003.

37

38 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2002. Early Site Permits Part of Improved Process for

39 Licensing New Nuclear Power Plants. Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, D.C. Accessed at 

40 http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?docid=987 on April 25, 2003.

41
Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 8-60 June 2003

1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. 42 USC 6901, et seq., as

2 amended.

3

4 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

5 Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E - Environmental Report. Rochester,

6 New York.

7

8 Sanford, M. V., V. Banunarayanan, and K. Wirgau. 2001. Implications of Capacity Additions in

9 New York on Transmission System Adequacy. MAPS study performed for the New York

10 Independent System Operator. Rev. 2. March2, 2001. Accessed at: 

11 http://www.nyiso.com/services/planning.html#tpr

12

13 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2000. Energy

14 Consumption and Renewable Energy Development Potential on Indian Lands. 

15 SR/CNEAF/2000-01, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

16 http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/renew.html on January 7, 2003

17

18 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2001a. Annual Energy

19 Outlook 2002 with Projections to 2020. DOE/EIA-0383(2002). Washington DC. Accessed at

20 http ://tonto.eis.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/forecasting.htm

21

22 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001b. Renewable

23 Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. DOE/EIA-0628(2000), Washington, D.C. Accessed at

24 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/06282000.pdf on January 7, 2003.

25

26 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2002. International

27 Energy Outlook 2002. DOE/EIA-0484(2002). Washington, D.C. Accessed at

28 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html on January 7, 2003.

29

30 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2003. Annual

31 Energy Outlook 2002 with Projections to 2025. DOE/EIA-0383(2003), Washington, D.C. 

32 Accessed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/fore_pub.html on January 7, 2003.

33

34 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002a. ”U.S. Wind Energy Resource Map.” Accessed at

35 http://www.eren.doe.gov/wind/we_map.html on January 7, 2003.

36

37 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002b. ”Fuel Cell Technology.” Accessed at

38 http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/fuelcells/index.shtml on January 7, 2003.

39
Alternatives

June 2003 8-61 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. ”Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of

2 Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.” Federal Register. 

3 Vol. 65, No. 245, pp. 79825-79831. Washington, D.C. (December 20, 2000.)

4

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000b. ”Notice of Regulatory Determination on

6 Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels.” Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 99,

7 pp. 32214-32237. Washington, D.C. (May 22, 2000.)

8

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. ”Municipal Solid Waste Disposal.” 

10 Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disposal.htm on February 19, 2002.

11

12 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2000. ”Obstruction Marking and Lighting.” 

13 Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K. Accessed at http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/ai/circV.pdf on May

14 17, 2002.

15

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

17 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

18

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

20 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report. ”Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1

21 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

22 Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

23

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. ”NRC Organizes Future Licensing Project

25 Organization.” Press Release No. 01-035, March 30, 2001.

26

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Supplement 1 to the Generic

28 Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586,

29 Supp. 1. Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

June 2003 9-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

9.0 Summary and Conclusions

1 By letter dated July 30, 2002, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) submitted an

2 application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license

3 (OL) for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) for an additional 20-year period

4 (RG&E 2002a). If the Ginna OL is renewed, New York State regulatory agencies and RG&E

5 will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the

6 need for power or other matters within the state’s jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If

7 the OL is not renewed, the plant must be shut down at or before the expiration of the current

8 OL, which expires September 18, 2009.

9

10 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321) directs that an

11 environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that significantly

12 affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA

13 in 10 CFR Part 51, which identifies licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In

14 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS

15 for renewal of a reactor OL; 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal

16 stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 17

18

19 Upon acceptance of the Ginna application, the NRC began the environmental review process

20 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct

21 scoping (67 FR 63171 [NRC 2002a]) on October 10, 2002. The staff visited the Ginna site in

22 November 2002 and held public scoping meetings on November 6, 2002, in Webster, New York

23 (NRC 2002b). The staff reviewed the RG&E Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002b) and

24 compared it to the GEIS, discussed it with other agencies, and conducted an independent

25 review of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, the

26 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: 

27 Operating License Renewal (NRC 2000). The staff also considered the public comments

28 received during the scoping process for preparation of this supplemental environmental impact

29 statement (SEIS) for Ginna. The public comments received during the scoping process and the

30 staff’s responses to these comments are provided in Appendix A, Part 1, of this draft SEIS.

31

32 The staff will hold two public meetings near Ginna in August 2003 to describe the preliminary

33 results of the NRC SEIS, to answer questions, and to provide members of the public with

34 information to assist them in formulating their comments. When the comment period ends, the

35 staff will consider and disposition all of the comments received. These comments will be

36 addressed in Appendix A, Part 2, of the final SEIS.
Summary and Conclusions

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 9-2 June 2003

1 This SEIS includes the NRC staff’s preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the

2 cumulative impacts of the action, the environmental effects of the proposed action, the

3 environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available

4 for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the staff’s preliminary

5 recommendation regarding the proposed action.

6

7 The NRC has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal from

8 the GEIS:

9

10 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an OL) is to provide an

11 option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear

12 power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs

13 may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC)

14 decisionmakers.

15

16 The goal of the staff’s environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is

17 to determine

18

19 ... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great

20 that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would

21 be unreasonable.

22

23 Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

24 there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether a licensee

25 continues to operate a nuclear power plant beyond the period of the OL.

26

27 NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)) contain the following statement regarding the content of

28 SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

29

30 The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

31 include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of

32 the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such

33 benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an

34 alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition,

35 the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage

36 need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed 

37 action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility
Summary and Conclusions

(a) The title of 10 CFR 51.23 is “Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operations–

generic determination of no significant environmental impact.”

June 2003 9-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 within the scope of the generic determination in 51.23(a) and in accordance with

51.23(b).(a) 2

3

4 The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an

5 OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. In the GEIS, the NRC staff

6 evaluated 92 environmental issues using the NRC’s three-level standard of significance –

7 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed using the Council on Environmental Quality

8 guidelines. The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in the

9 footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

10

11 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

12 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

13

14 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,

15 important attributes of the resource.

16

17 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

18 important attributes of the resource.

19

20 For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the staff made the following findings:

21

22 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

23 to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

24 specified plant or site characteristics.

25

26 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

27 impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high28 level waste and spent fuel disposal).

29

30 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

31 and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

32 to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

33

34 The staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in the GEIS for all

35 69 issues designated as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

36
Summary and Conclusions

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 9-4 June 2003

1 Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

2 issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

3 environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. 

4 Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must also be addressed in a

5 plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic

6 fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.

7

8 This SEIS documents the staff’s evaluation of all 92 environmental issues considered in the

9 GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license

10 renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The

11 alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action alternative (not

12 renewing the Ginna OL) and alternative methods of power generation. Based on projections

13 made by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, natural-gas and

14 coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely power-generation alternatives if the power

15 from Ginna is replaced. These alternatives were evaluated assuming that the replacement

16 power generation plant is located at either the Ginna site or some other unspecified location.

17

18 9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action –

19 License Renewal

20

21 RG&E and the NRC staff have established independent processes for identifying and

22 evaluating the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license

23 renewal. RG&E did not identify any information that is both new and significant related to

24 Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. During the course

25 of SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the continued operation of

26 Ginna. Continued operation for an additional 20 years was considered as a whole, and all of

27 the specific effects on the environment (whether or not “significant”) were evaluated. The

28 staff’s preliminary conclusion found that the operations and facilities at Ginna provide mitigation

29 for all impacts and no new mitigation measures are warranted. The staff relies upon the

30 conclusions of the GEIS for all Category 1 issues that are applicable to Ginna.

31

32 RG&E’s license renewal application presents analyses of the Category 2 issues that are

33 applicable to Ginna and, additionally, environmental justice. The staff has reviewed the RG&E

34 analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue and chronic

35 effects from electromagnetic fields. Six Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are

36 related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at Ginna. Four Category 2

37 issues are not discussed in this draft SEIS because they are specifically related to

38 refurbishment. RG&E (2002b) has stated that its evaluation of structures and components, as

39 required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or

40 modifications as necessary to support the continued operation of Ginna for the license renewal
Summary and Conclusions

June 2003 9-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 period. In addition, any replacement of components or additional inspection activities are within

2 the bounds of normal plant component replacement and, therefore, are not expected to affect

3 the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the Final

4 Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1,

5 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (AEC 1973).

6

7 Ten Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and one related to postulated accidents

8 during the renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic

9 fields, are discussed in detail in this draft SEIS. Five of the Category 2 issues and

10 environmental justice apply to both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term and

11 are only discussed in this draft SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. All 11

12 Category 2 issues and environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential

13 environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the

14 GEIS. In addition, the staff determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not

15 reached a consensus on the existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. 

16 Therefore, no further evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation

17 alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to

18 identify and evaluate SAMAs. Although two of the SAMAs appeared to be cost beneficial, they

19 do not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended

20 operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as a part of the license renewal pursuant

21 to 10 CFR Part 54.

22

23 Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

24 the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

25 mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

26

27 Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were

28 considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such

29 other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where Ginna license renewal impacts are deemed

30 to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative

31 impacts on potentially affected resources. 

32

33 The following sections discuss unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable

34 commitments of resources, and the relationship between local short-term use of the

35 environment and long-term productivity.

36

37 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

38

39 An environmental review conducted at the license renewal stage differs from the review

40 conducted in support of a construction permit because the plant is in existence at the license

41 renewal stage and has operated for a number of years. As a result, adverse impacts
Summary and Conclusions

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 9-6 June 2003

1 associated with the initial construction have been avoided, have been mitigated, or have

2 already occurred. The environmental impacts to be evaluated for license renewal are those

3 associated with refurbishment and continued operation during the renewal term.

4

5 The adverse impacts of continued operation identified are considered to be of SMALL

6 significance, and none warrants implementation of additional mitigation measures. The

7 adverse impacts of likely alternatives if Ginna ceases operation at or before the expiration of

8 the current OL will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of this unit,

9 and they may be greater for some impact categories in some locations.

10

11 9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments

12

13 The commitment of resources related to construction and operation of Ginna during its current

14 license period was made when the plant was built. The resource commitments to be

15 considered in this SEIS are associated with continued operation of the plant for an additional

16 20 years. These resources include materials and equipment required for plant maintenance

17 and operation, the nuclear fuel used by the reactors, and ultimately, permanent offsite storage

18 space for the spent fuel assemblies.

19

20 The most significant resource commitments related to operation during the renewal term are

21 the fuel and the permanent storage space. Ginna regularly replaces about one-third (44) of the

22 fuel assemblies in the reactor core at approximately 18-month intervals (RG&E 2002b).

23

24 The likely power generation alternatives if Ginna ceases operation on or before the expiration of

25 the current OL will require a commitment of resources for construction of the replacement

26 plants as well as for fuel to run the plants.

27

28 9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity

29

30 An initial balance between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment at the

31 Ginna site was set when the plant was approved and construction began. That balance is now

32 well established. Renewal of the OL for Ginna and continued operation of the plant will not alter

33 the existing balance, but may postpone the availability of the site for other uses. Denial of the

34 application to renew the OL will lead to shutdown of the plant and will alter the balance in a

35 manner that depends on subsequent uses of the site. For example, the environmental

36 consequences of turning the Ginna site into a park or an industrial facility are quite different.

37
Summary and Conclusions

June 2003 9-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of

2 License Renewal and Alternatives

3

4 The proposed action is renewal of the OL for Ginna. Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant,

5 and interactions of the plant with the environment. As noted in Chapter 3, no refurbishment and

6 no refurbishment impacts are expected at Ginna. Chapters 4 through 7 discuss environmental

7 issues associated with renewal of the OL. Environmental issues associated with the no-action

8 alternative, and alternatives involving power generation and use reduction are discussed in

9 Chapter 8.

10

11 The significance of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (approval of the

12 application for renewal of the OL), the no-action alternative (denial of the application),

13 alternatives involving nuclear, or coal- or gas-fired generation of power at the Ginna site and an

14 unspecified “greenfield site,” and a combination of alternatives are compared in Table 9-1. 

15 Continued use of a once-through cooling system at Ginna is assumed for Table 9-1, but a

16 closed-cycle cooling system is assumed at an alternate site.

17

18 Substitution of a cooling tower for the once-through cooling system in the evaluation of the

19 nuclear and gas- and coal-fired generation alternatives would result in some greater

20 environmental impact differences in some impact categories. For example, use of cooling

21 towers would have a greater aesthetic impact than once-through cooling.

22

23 Table 9-1 shows that the significance of the environmental effects of the proposed action are

24 SMALL for all impact categories (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel

25 cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal for which a single significance level was

26 not assigned [Chapter 6.0]). The alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may

27 have environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or

28 LARGE significance.

29

30 9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendation

31

32 Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS (NRC 1996, 1999), (2) the Ginna ER

33 (RG&E 2002b), (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies, (4) the staff’s

34 own independent review, and (5) the staff’s consideration of public comments received during

35 the scoping process, the preliminary recommendation of the staff is that the Commission

36 determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Ginna, including

37 cumulative impacts, are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy38 planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

39
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 9-8 June 2003

1 Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action Alternative, and Alt

Methods of Generation(a)

234 Impact5 Category

Proposed

Action–

License

Renewal

No Action

Alternative–

Denial of

Renewal

Coal-Fired

Generation

Natural-Gas-Fired

Generation

New Nuclear

Generation

Ginna Site

Greenfield

Site(b) Ginna Site

Greenfield

Site(b) Ginna Site

Greenfield

Site(b) Gi

6 Land Use SMALL SMALL MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE

to LARGE

SM

MO

7 Ecology SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE MODERATE

to LARGE

SM

MO

8 Surface-Water9 Use and

10 Quality

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

S

11 Groundwater12 Use and13 Quality

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

S

14 Air Quality SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL MO15 Waste SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL S

Human Health(c) 16 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL S

17 Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE

to LARGE

SM

MO

18 Aesthetics SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE

MO

19 Historic and2021 Archaeological 22 Resources

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SM

MO

23 Environmental 24 Justice

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL S

25 (a) Alternatives located at the Ginna site are assumed to utilize the existing once-through cooling system; alternatives located at an alternate site a26 closed-cycle cooling system with cooling towers.27 (b) A greenfield site is assumed, for the purpose of bounding potential impacts, to be an undeveloped site with no previous construction.28 (c) Excludes collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal, for which a significance lev29 See Chapter 6 for details.30
Summary and Conclusions

June 2003 9-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 9.4 References

2

3 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

4 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

5

6 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

7 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

8

9 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002a. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

10 Application for Renewed Operating License. Rochester, New York.

11

12 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002b. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

13 Application for Renewed Operating License, Appendix E – Environmental Report. Rochester,

14 New York.

15

16 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et. seq.

17

18 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

19 Operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation. 

20 Docket No. 50-244, Washington, D.C.

21

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

23 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

24

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

26 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report. ”Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1

27 Summary of Findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

28 Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

29

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for Environmental

31 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555,

32 Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

33

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. “Rochester Gas and Electric

35 Corporation, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental

36 Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal Register: Vol. 67, No. 197,

37 pp. 63171-63173. October 10, 2002.

38

39
Summary and Conclusions

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 9-10 June 2003

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Summary of Public Scoping Meetings to

2 Support Review of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Application,

3 December 17, 2002.

4

5
Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review
June 2003 A-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

1 Part I – Comments Received During Scoping

2

3 On August 1, 2002, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received, by letter dated

4 July 30, 2002, an application from the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E), filed

5 pursuant to Section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR Part 54,

6 which would authorize the applicant to operate the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) for

7 an additional 20-year period. The current operating license (OL) for Ginna expires on

8 September 18, 2009. Ginna is a pressurized water reactor designed by Westinghouse Electric

9 Company and is located in Wayne County, New York. As part of the application, RG&E

10 submitted an Environmental Report (ER) prepared in accordance with the requirements of 10

11 CFR Part 51, which contains the NRC requirements for implementing the National

12 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Section 51.53 outlines requirements for preparation

13 and submittal of ERs to the NRC.

14

15 Section 51.53(c)(3) was based upon the findings documented in NUREG-1437, Generic

16 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, (GEIS). The

17 GEIS, in which the staff identified and evaluated the environmental impacts associated with

18 license renewal, was issued for public comment. The staff received input from Federal and

19 State agencies, public organizations, and private citizens. As a result of the assessments in the

20 GEIS, a number of impacts were determined to be generic to all nuclear power plants. These

21 were designated as Category 1 impacts. An applicant for license renewal may adopt the

22 conclusions contained in the GEIS for Category 1 impacts in the absence of new and significant

23 information that may cause the conclusions to fall outside those of the GEIS. Category 2

24 impacts are those impacts that have been determined to be plant-specific and are required to

25 be addressed in the applicant’s ER.

26

27 The Commission determined that the NRC does not have a role in energy planning decision28 making for existing plants, which should be left to State regulators and utility officials. 

29 Therefore, an applicant for license renewal need not provide an analysis of the need for power,

30 or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action. Additionally, the

31 Commission determined that the ER should not include a discussion of any aspect of storage of

32 spent fuel for the facility. This determination was based on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of

33 1982 and the Commission’s Waste Confidence Rule, 10 CFR 51.23.

34

35 On October 10, 2002, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register

36 (67 FR 63171), to notify the public of the NRC’s intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to

37 the GEIS to support the review of the license renewal application for the Ginna OL. The
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-2 June 2003

1 plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of

2 NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51. The NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of a

3 Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, Tribal, State, and local

4 government agencies; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process

5 by providing oral comments at the scheduled public meetings and/or submitting written

6 suggestions and comments no later than December 11, 2002. The scoping process included

7 two public scoping meetings, which were held at the Webster Public Library in Webster, New

8 York, on November 6, 2002. The NRC announced the meetings in local newspapers

9 (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Courier Gazette, Times of Wayne County, Wayne County

10 Star, and Finger Lake Times), issued press releases, and distributed flyers locally. 

11 Approximately 120 people attended the meetings, including the NRC environmental review

12 team, members of the public, representatives from RG&E, State and local governments, and

13 the press. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the

14 license renewal process and the NEPA process. Following the NRC’s prepared statements, the

15 meetings were open for public comments. Fifteen (15) commenters (two of whom spoke at

16 both meetings) provided either oral comments or written statements that were recorded and

17 transcribed by a certified court reporter. In addition to the comments provided during the public

18 meetings, the NRC received four comment letters. The afternoon and evening meeting

19 transcripts (accession numbers ML023530107 and ML023530120) and comment letters are

20 available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the

21 Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC’s document system (ADAMS). ADAMS

22 is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.htm (the Public

23 Electronic Reading Room).

24

25 The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be

26 addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and highlight public concerns and

27 issues. The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS identified the following objectives of the scoping

28 process:

29

30  define the proposed action

31

32  determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify significant issues to be

33 analyzed in depth

34

35  identify and eliminate peripheral issues

36

37  identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements

38 being prepared that are related to the supplement to the GEIS

39

40  identify other environmental review and consultation requirements

41
Appendix A

June 2003 A-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  indicate the schedule for preparation of the supplement to the GEIS

2  identify any cooperating agencies 

3

4  describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared.

5

6 At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor reviewed the

7 transcripts and all written material received, and identified individual comments. All comments

8 and suggestions received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were considered. 

9 Each set of comments from a given commenter was given a unique alpha identifier

10 (Commenter ID letter), allowing each set of comments from a commenter to be traced back to

11 the transcript, letter, or email in which the comments were submitted. Several commenters

12 submitted comments through multiple sources (e.g., afternoon and evening scoping meetings). 

13 Table A-1 identifies the individuals providing comments and the Commenter ID letter associated

14 with each person’s set(s) of comments. The individuals are listed in the order in which they

15 spoke at the public meeting, and random order for the comments received by letter or email.

16

17 Comments were consolidated and categorized according to the topic within the proposed

18 supplement to the GEIS or according to the general topic if outside the scope of the GEIS. 

19 Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential

20 issues that had been raised in the source comments. Once comments were grouped according

21 to subject area, the staff and contractor determined the appropriate action for the comment. 

22 The staff made a determination on each comment that it was one of the following:

23

24  A comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general

25 (or specifically to Ginna) or that makes a general statement about the licensing renewal

26 process. It may make only a general statement regarding Category 1 and/or Category 2

27 issues. In addition, it provides no new information and does not pertain to 10 CFR

28 Part 54.

29

30  A comment about a Category 1 issue that

31 - provided new information that required evaluation during the review

32 - provided no new information.

33

34  A comment about a Category 2 issue that

35 - provided information that required evaluation during the review

36 - provided no such information.

37

38  A comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS.

39

40  A comment regarding Alternatives to the proposed action.

41
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-4 June 2003

1 Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period

2

3 Commenter ID Commenter Affiliation (If Stated)

Comment Source and

ADAMS Accession Number

4 A Bernadette Anderson Afternoon Scoping Meeting(a)

5 B Tim Judson Citizens Awareness Network Afternoon Scoping Meeting

6 C John Greenbaum Metro Justice Afternoon Scoping Meeting

7 D Andy Gutacker Afternoon Scoping Meeting

8 E Roland Micklem Lakeshore Environmental

Action

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

9 F Michael Havens Wayne Central School District Afternoon Scoping Meeting

10 G Bob Mecredy RG&E Afternoon Scoping Meeting

11 H Susan Gateley Lakeshore Environmental

Action

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

12 I Cathryn Thomas Town of Webster Afternoon Scoping Meeting

13 J Ron Fellows American Nuclear Society -

Ginna Plant Branch

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

14 K Joel Van Schaffel Millwrights Local 1163 Afternoon Scoping Meeting

15 L Ron Behan Rochester Building and

Construction Trades Council

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

16 M Dr. N. R. Loomis Afternoon Scoping Meeting

17 N Charles Arnold Evening Scoping Meeting(b)

18 O Dick Clark Town of Ontario Evening Scoping Meeting

19 P Bob Mecredy RG&E Evening Scoping Meeting

20 Q Ron Fellows American Nuclear SocietyGinna Plant BranchEvening Scoping Meeting

21 R Kimberly Merchant New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation

Comment Letter

22 S Kathy Mitchell Seneca Nation Comment Letter

23 T Tom Peaslee Comment Letter

24 U Frank Guelli Town of Walworth Comment Letter

25 (a) The afternoon transcript can be found under accession number ML023530107.

26 (b) The evening transcript can be found under accession number ML023530120.

27

28  A comment regarding safety issues within the scope of 10 CFR Part 54, but out of the

29 scope of 10 CFR Part 51.

30

31  A comment outside the scope of license renewal (not related to 10 CFR Parts 51 or 54),

32 which includes

33 - a comment regarding emergency response and planning

34 - a comment regarding the need for power

35 - a comment regarding operational safety issues

36 - a comment regarding safeguards and security.

37
Appendix A

June 2003 A-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  A comment that was actually a question and introduces no new information.

2

3 Each comment is summarized in Appendix A, Part I. For reference, the unique identifier for

4 each comment (Commenter ID letter listed in Table A-1 plus the comment number) is provided. 

5 In those cases where no new information was provided by the commenter, no further evaluation

6 will be performed.

7

8 The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (which is the SEIS) will take into

9 account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping process. The SEIS will address both

10 Category 1 and 2 issues, along with any new information identified as a result of scoping. The

11 SEIS will rely on conclusions supported by information in the GEIS for Category 1 issues, and

12 will include the analysis of Category 2 issues and any new and significant information. The

13 draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be available for public comment. The comment

14 period will offer the next opportunity for the applicant; interested Federal, Tribal, State, and local

15 government agencies; local organizations; and members of the public to provide input to the

16 NRC’s environmental review process. The comments received on the draft SEIS will be

17 considered in the preparation of the final SEIS. The final SEIS, along with the staff’s Safety

18 Evaluation Report (SER), will provide much of the basis for the NRC’s decision on the Ginna

19 license renewal.

20

21 Appendix A, Part I summarizes the comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping

22 process, and discusses their disposition. Parenthetical numbers after each comment refer to

23 the Commenter ID letter and the comment number. Comments can be tracked to the

24 commenter and the source document through the ID letter and comment number listed in

25 Table A-1. Comments are grouped by category. The categories are as follows:

26

27 A.1.1 Comments Regarding License Renewal and its Processes

28

29 A.1.2 Comments in Support of License Renewal at Ginna

30

31 A.1.3 Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Ginna

32

33 A.1.4 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

34

35 A.1.5 Comments Concerning Human Health

36

37 A.1.6 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

38

39 A.1.7 Comments Concerning Land Use Issues

40

41 A.1.8 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-6 June 2003

1 A.1.9 Comments Concerning Alternative Energy Sources

2

3 A.1.10 Comments Concerning Safety Issues Within the Scope of License Renewal

4

5 A.1 Comments and Responses

6

7 A.1.1 Comments Regarding License Renewal and its Processes

8

9 Comment: But my other question is more in terms of the relicensing issue, and whether in

10 your understanding, or any of the NRC representatives understanding, if Ginna is relicensed,

11 whether that creates a larger window of opportunity for RG&E, or some other owner of Ginna,

12 to build a new reactor, without having to go through a site permitting process? Sure, it is just a

13 follow-up to my previous question. Because, you know, this is sort of a convoluted process that

14 I feel that we are going through with the relicensing, as well as other regulatory issues. But I

15 guess one of the things I'm wondering is, if Ginna were not to receive a license extension, then

16 it would have to shut down in 2009. And prior to that, you know, initiate a decommissioning and

17 site cleanup process, you know, through preparing plans for how they were going to do that,

18 that they would have to submit to NRC and begin preparing, you know, the reactor complex and

19 the site for that. And would that complicate, in any way, the submission of an early site permit

20 application to build a new reactor onsite, or to begin that kind of preparation, has that ever

21 happened before, and what is the anticipation? (B-3)

22

23 Response: The comment is in regard to license renewal and its processes in general. The

24 Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be

25 conducted to review a license renewal application. Any attempt to locate a new reactor on the

26 existing site would require a new site permit as well as a new operating license completely

27 separate from license renewal. The comment did not provide significant, new information;

28 therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

29

30 Comment: And my question is, there are a number of nuclear power facilities on the New York

31 side of Lake Ontario. Canada has 12. When you do the environmental impact statements do

32 you then also take into consideration what is the impact of this conglomerate of plants that exist

33 in this area? (A-4)

34

35 Comment: And if Ginna were being considered, today, in this place, it might not be built under

36 that legislation. Lake Ontario is now home to 16 nuclear plants, a tritium recovery facility, a

37 uranium refinery, and at least two low-level radioactive waste dumps at Lewiston and Port

38 Hope. Most of these plants were built after Ginna. Ginna is one of the oldest plants on the

39 lake. That is a big cumulative impact on the lake. (H-3)

40
Appendix A

June 2003 A-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Comment: Also an environmental impact statement does, or should, consider what they call

2 secondary impacts. Which are something like you build a shopping mall, and then you attract

3 other businesses to set up alongside it, so that the initial traffic load from the mall becomes

4 greater 20 years down the road because of other things. And that may be some of what Tim is

5 driving at. By relicensing the plant you might encourage a future usage of that site, not

6 necessarily another nuclear plant, but some other industrial usage of this slightly contaminated

7 site that might not be compatible with the environment, or with the residential area. So I'm

8 concerned about thinking about those secondary impacts, what this woman referred to, those

9 20 year out impacts. (H-12)

10

11 Response: The comments are in regard to license renewal and its processes in general. The

12 Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be

13 conducted to review a license renewal application. This process includes a review of

14 cumulative impacts. The comments did not provide significant, new information; therefore, they

15 will not be evaluated further.

16

17 Comment: Another very big change since Ginna was built is deregulation. This is changing

18 the way these plants are operated. Ginna is coming up on 40 years now. So it does need

19 more care and monitoring. However, both the NRC and industry are trying to streamline

20 regulation and reduce costs. Pressures to reduce costs to industry, along with possibly a little

21 complacency, are what led to that hole in the reactor head at Davis-Besse. That could have

22 been a very serious accident on Lake Erie. One more change since the good old days of the

23 AEC, the regulatory Atomic Energy Commission of the 1960s. Today the NRC must function in

24 a political environment that stresses deregulation and less government spending. The NRC

25 has been like other agencies; it has been pressured to become more efficient. And for several

26 years it has endured reduced funding, and a shortage of skilled technical workers. In a speech

27 two years ago, I don't know what the situation is now, but two years ago the NRC chairman

28 said, despite efforts to hire new engineers, we have experienced a net loss of engineers over

29 the past five years, about 8 percent of their workforce, engineering workforce. We are losing

30 expertise, and along with it, valuable institutional knowledge. That is a direct quote from his

31 speech. The net effect of this, and failures to catch things like that Davis Besse hole in the

32 head, is that there is less trust of institutions like the NRC, than there was of the AEC, 40 years

33 ago. And I think we see a little bit of that in this room today, less trusting public. (H-8)

34

35 Response: The comment is in regard to license renewal and its processes in general. The

36 Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be

37 conducted to review a license renewal application. This includes an appropriate number of

38 NRC and contractor staff to sufficiently review the plant and prepare a supplemental

39 environmental impact statement specific to the plant. The comment did not provide significant,

40 new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

41
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-8 June 2003

1 Comment: The THPO (Tribal Historic Preservation Office) would indeed be a consulting party

2 to the renewal Ginna operating license. Under Section 106 of the NHPA (National Historic

3 Preservation Act), the THPO has 30 days to respond to a notification of an undertaking. 

4 Unfortunately, your November 1 letter to us informed us of a public scoping meeting on

5 November 6 - i.e., 5 days notice. Future consultation with us should occur on a government-to6 government basis. The Seneca Nation, being a sovereign entity, will not be classified as the

7 general public (see page 63172, bottom of left column of the Federal Register Notice of Intent).

8 (S-1)

9

10 Response: The NRC recognizes the Seneca Nation as a sovereign entity and will conduct

11 future consultation on a government-to-government basis. The comment did not provide

12 significant, new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

13

14 A.1.2 Comments in Support of License Renewal at Ginna

15

16 Comment: And let me say, with that, that provided that Energy East maintains the level of

17 support for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, that has been demonstrated by RG&E, I am in

18 support of relicensing the nuclear power plant. And I say that for three primary reasons. First

19 of all, it has been an excellent corporate neighbor. Secondly, it provides a substantial tax base

20 for the school district. And, thirdly, it provides a good standard of living for our families, and to

21 my students. (F-1)

22

23 Comment: The power plant has provided approximately $15.8 million in revenue over the last

24 five years. It provided $3,182,172 to the tax base just last year; 29.9 percent of the local taxes

25 that we collect come from Ginna. Consequently the loss of Ginna would be an economic

26 disaster for the school district, and taxpayers. (F-2)

27

28 Comment: Secondly, it has been a good corporate neighbor for us who live here in the Wayne

29 Central School District. And I live approximately eight miles from the nuclear power plant. (F-3)

30

31 Comment: I would also say that the plant has been a good neighbor. Mr. Biendenbach and

32 his people have allowed us to use their Manor House for training; to house some of the

33 programs for our special needs children. When we have a need RG&E has always been there. 

34 After 9/11, when all of us were very concerned about the safety of the plant, Rick Wyatts, Joe

35 Widay, others volunteered to come to the school and run programs for us. They have been a

36 good corporate neighbor to us. (F-5)

37

38 Comment: So, in conclusion, Ginna has been good for the Wayne Central School District, its

39 community, and its children. And as long as Energy East maintains the existing level of care,

40 we are supportive of its relicensing. (F-7)

41
Appendix A

June 2003 A-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Comment: We believe it is important to retain the option to operate the plant in the extended

2 period, thereby contributing to the overall power supply in the state and, importantly, to the

3 energy mix in the state. (G-5) (P-5)

4

5 Comment: Long-term is it a good idea to make the licensing, but if they are making their

6 decision, or a part of their decision is based on historically how has the facility run, and what is

7 the impression of people about it, my impression is that the facility is run in a very excellent

8 manner, and the people that we deal with to run it are very good, and caring, and professional

9 people. (I-4)

10

11 Comment: And, in closing, the American Nuclear Society's Ginna Plant Branch is obviously in

12 favor, and fully supportive of extending Ginna's license for 20 years. Thank you. (J-1) (Q-2)

13

14 Comment: They've done a very good job protecting the workers there, along with the

15 surrounding areas. The people always seem to come home in good shape, they have learned

16 a lot; they've been well educated while they were there. (K-1)

17

18 Comment: I'm here today to speak in favor for the renewal of the operating license for the

19 Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. And I can only say that I hope that the NRC goes through with the

20 licensing, it would mean a lot to this community. Thank you. (L-1)

21

22 Comment: And I think we all should realize and appreciate what a well-rounded efficient plant

23 that RG&E has at Ginna. (L-3)

24

25 Comment: One of the concerns we talked about alternative sources of power. One of our

26 major concerns, after RG&E bought it, was not the nuclear side of things, but were they going

27 to put gigantic piles of coal about 600 or 800 feet behind our house. And then I found out, in

28 some of the early stuff, that it generated more radiation than did the plant. So we were

29 supporters at the start. And I did, for the town, a great deal of work regarding the safety of all

30 this. (M-1)

31

32 Comment: We believe the license should be renewed because the positive factors outweigh

33 the negative. (M-3)

34

35 Comment: In closing, I'm 41 years old; I live 11 miles south of the plant. I'm proud to be in

36 close proximity to such facility as Ginna. (Q-1)

37

38 Comment: I am writing you in support of RG&E's application for an operating license

39 extension. I believe its operating record is worthy of relicensing. (U-1)

40
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-10 June 2003

1 Response: The comments were supportive of license renewal at Ginna and are general in

2 nature. The comments did not provide significant, new information; therefore, they will not be

3 evaluated further.

4

5 A.1.3 Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Ginna

6

7 Comment: And what actually, you know, what is afforded to us at this point is the fact that

8 Ginna, you know, if it doesn't get relicensed has seven years to plan for a shutdown. And while

9 as an anti-nuclear person it is hard for me to say, you know, keep it running for another seven

10 years. It affords us an opportunity to plan for the phase-out, and to plan for what is going to

11 happen in terms of jobs, and in terms of property taxes, and in terms of the economy. We

12 would all be a lot safer; there is no doubt about that. So why not take the chance that we have

13 now, rather than let R. E. Ginna go forward, and charge the repairs for the process of

14 relicensing this reactor, for any retrofits that it goes through, and deal honestly with the question

15 of whether RG&E is going to sell this plant. (B-6)

16

17 Comment: Ginna should not be relicensed. (H-11)

18

19 Comment: Nuclear power is one of the more regulated industries around. The solution is not

20 to deregulate it, or to extend it, or relicense it, but to eliminate it, to phase it out, like they are

21 doing in Sweden and Germany. We could do it right here, we could start right here in Wayne

22 County. (H-14)

23

24 Comment: But with all due respect, to the NRC representatives here, I believe, and CAN

25 believes, that the NRC's review of this question of extending Ginna's operating life for another

26 20 years is really inadequate to protect the public health and safety. And that is because of

27 some of the questions that we've asked today, such as, you know, whether – it is important

28 what the material condition of the reactor is at this point. You know, it sounds really scientific,

29 we got a lot of really scientific answers to that, how it is going to be dealt with? But, essentially,

30 the NRC supports relicensing of reactors as a policy. And the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory

31 Commission appointed by the President, has given directives to the NRC staff to facilitate the

32 relicensing, and the construction of new reactors, and revised the rules on the relicensing

33 process to make that more possible, to make it easier. And so what we are stuck with is this

34 process in which it is really difficult for the public even to challenge the relicensing of a reactor

35 at this point. It is really difficult for the public to even intervene in this process, with all the

36 issues that are really relevant, like the questions that people have been raising today. So in

37 that sense, you know, it doesn't seem like this is the place to have our concerns addressed. 

38 And there is a number of groups here who are going to be appealing to the Public Service

39 Commission in New York State to be involved in this process, and to oppose the relicensing. 

40 And I know that when we are opposing the relicensing, essentially what we are saying is that

41 the reactor should shut down. And, you know, I live in Syracuse, I work in Oswego County, I
Appendix A

June 2003 A-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 understand the terrible impact that people can conceive of when we talk about shutting down

2 plants in this region. (B-4)

3

4 Response: The comments are noted. The comments are opposed to license renewal at Ginna

5 and are general in nature. The comments did not provide significant, new information;

6 therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

7

8 A.1.4 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

9

10 As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 and 2 aquatic ecology issues include:

11

12 Category 1

13

14  Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota

15  Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton

16  Cold shock

17  Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish

18  Distribution of aquatic organisms

19  Premature emergence of aquatic insects

20  Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease)

21  Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge

22  Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal

23 stresses

24  Stimulation of nuisance organisms

25

26 Category 2

27

28  Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages

29  Impingement of fish and shellfish

30  Heat shock

31

32 Comment: Now, how do you determine whether or not the amount of radiation that you

33 release into the lake, you obviously know what it is, how can you determine exactly what impact

34 it is going to have on the ecology of the lake, given the subtleties of the changes, and is it ever

35 considered that probably a lot of the deterioration of the lake environment – I'm talking about

36 now only of the internal motors, I'm not talking about the air, or anything of that. The

37 deterioration of the lake environment may be due, partially of course, to nuclear plants, but also

38 to all the other discharges. And I don't see how you can make that kind of adequate evaluation. 

39 Okay, so we have nuclear plants, and we have a lot of other things. I don't quite see how you

40 can get an adequate environmental impact statement on – without really taking the whole

41 framework of the ecology there. (E-1) 
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-12 June 2003

1 Comment: I will just say one more thing, and then I will shut up. There used to be a species of

2 snail that was very prominent on the shores of Lake Ontario. And in my more studious days I

3 remembered the scientific name. I don't any more. All I know is that once it did exist, and now

4 it doesn't. (E-2)

5

6 Comment: Staff have determined that the existing entrainment study (conducted in 1977) is

7 out of date and should be updated as part of the application for NRC license extension of the

8 Ginna facility. The initial study was conducted to meet the requirements of the 401 Water

9 Quality Certification issued by the Department in 1974. The existing data is more than twenty

10 years old and Lake Ontario conditions have changed considerably in this time period – including

11 changes in populations of zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena spp.), alewives, gobies,

12 smallmouth bass, climate, etc. In addition, the 1977 study was for a very limited period of the

13 year. More recent entrainment studies required by the Department have included studies over

14 longer periods of time, some of which have demonstrated entrainment impacts at Lake Ontario

15 cooling water intakes. Therefore, an updated study is recommended in order for the

16 Department to evaluate the impacts of the facility due to entrainment. Subsequently, the

17 Department has incorporated an entrainment study into the Draft State Pollutant Discharge

18 Elimination System (SPDES) Permit. RG&E has commented on the draft SPDES and the

19 Department has incorporated their comments. The draft SPDES permit is attached. The

20 requirement to conduct an updated entrainment study will also be included as a condition of the

21 new 401 Water Quality Certification. We recommend that the SEIS include a brief summary on

22 the 1977 entrainment study results and the proposal to conduct an updated study of in-plant

23 entrainment. (R-1)

24

25 Comment: We recommend that the SEIS include a brief summary on impingement report

26 results and the commitment of RG&E to continue to replace older screens. (R-2)

27

28 Comment: Department staff identified the potential for increased fish mortality due to the

29 return of the impinged fish to the discharge canal, which contains elevated temperatures from

30 the cooling water effluent. RG&E included a brief discussion on this issue in the Environmental

31 Report. Staff did not have enough information from this discussion to determine whether the

32 elevated temperatures in the discharge canal result in additional fish mortality. On Monday,

33 December 9, 2002, RG&E provided staff with a copy of the 316(a) Demonstration and

34 Supplement (March 1977) to see if the report addresses the Department's concerns. Staff

35 have not had the opportunity to review the report, however, they will be reviewing it over the

36 next few weeks. We will continue to discuss the issue with RG&E and NRC on this issue. 

37 Depending on the information provided in the 316(a) report, we may either recommend further

38 study, recommend an extension of the impinged fish return, or conclude that the concerns have

39 been addressed. In the interim, we recommend that the SEIS include a discussion regarding

40 Heat Shock. (R-3)

41
Appendix A

June 2003 A-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Response: The comments refer to the aquatic ecology near Ginna. These specific comments

2 as well as other aquatic ecology issues will be discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the

3 DSEIS. 

4

5 A.1.5 Comments Concerning Human Health

6

7 As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 and 2 human health issues include:

8

9 Category 1

10

11  Noise

12  Radiation exposures to public (license renewal)

13  Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal)

14

15 Category 2

16

17  Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric shock)

18

19 Comment: All of these plants, when they are operating, all of these facilities, release some

20 radioactivity. Some of it has a very short half-life of days or weeks; some of it, like tritium, has a

21 longer half-life of 12 years; some is very long-lived. That brings me to point number two. When

22 the plant was new, we did not have 40 years of radiation being released. Radiation exposure

23 has cumulative health effects. That is why most skin cancers show up later in life. As power

24 plants operate they expose the population, and the environment, to an ongoing burden of

25 exposure. And just as an aside to this, outside of scoping, many scientists do not accept

26 threshold dose and hormesis as valid, no matter what the HPs (health physicist) say. So the

27 longer these plants operate basically the more dose, cumulative, the population receives. 

28 Population around Ginna, number three, is much higher than it was when the plant was built. 

29 This is no longer a rural area; it is now a suburban area. (H-5) 

30

31 Response: The comment is noted. Radiation exposure to the public and workers was

32 evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. The NRC’s regulatory limits

33 for radiological protection are set to protect workers and the public from the harmful health

34 effects of radiation on humans. The limits were based on the recommendations of standards35 setting organizations. Radiation standards reflect extensive scientific study by national and

36 international organizations (International Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRP],

37 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and National Academy of

38 Sciences) and are conservative to ensure that the public and workers at nuclear power plants

39 are protected. The radiation exposure standards are presented in 10 CFR Part 20, ”Standards

40 for Protection Against Radiation,” and are based on the recommendations in ICRP 26 and 30.

41
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-14 June 2003

1 Numerous scientifically designed, peer-reviewed studies of personnel exposed to occupational

2 levels of radiation (versus life-threatening accident doses or medical therapeutic levels) have

3 shown minimal effect on human health, and any effect was from exposures well above the

4 exposure levels of the typical member of the public from normal operation of a nuclear power

5 plant.

6

7 The comment provides no new information, and does not pertain to the scope of license

8 renewal as set forth in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54. Therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

9

10 A.1.6 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

11

12 As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 and 2 socioeconomic issues include:

13

14 Category 1

15

16  Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation

17  Public services, education (license renewal term)

18  Aesthetics impacts (refurbishment)

19  Aesthetics impacts (license renewal)

20  Aesthetics impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term)

21

22 Category 2

23

24  Housing Impacts

25  Public services: public utilities

26  Public services, education (refurbishment)

27  Offsite land use (refurbishment)

28  Offsite land use (license renewal term)

29  Public services, transportation

30  Historic and archaeological resources

31 Comment: Thirdly, it has to do with the standard of living for my children. Ginna provides

32 approximately 500 RG&E jobs at its plant. In addition there are about 300 related jobs through

33 private contractors. Now, most of those people live in my school district, and they are parents

34 of my schoolchildren. My children live in decent homes, and have middle class values, and

35 middle class opportunities because of Ginna. Because of this we believe we can offer the best

36 of both worlds. We live in a pleasant rural community, but we have the benefits of a suburban

37 type school district. (F-6)

38

39 Comment: But beyond that our employees give back to the community in a variety of ways. 

40 They serve on school boards, and town boards, as scout leaders and sports coaches, they

41 support day care centers, and senior centers. They serve on ski patrols, and they train guide

42 dogs. Our employees raised money to donate a defibrillator to the Ontario Volunteer
Appendix A

June 2003 A-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Ambulance Service. We partner with the Wayne Central School District by providing them with

2 the space for their Eagles Ventures program, a program for those students who can benefit

3 from an alternative educational program, and setting. We continue to participate, on an annual

4 basis, in the science and exploration days of the St. John Fisher College, contributing to interest

5 in science on the part of the young people in the community, and we participate in the Annual

6 Day of Caring, among others. (G-8) (P-7)

7

8 Comment: It is used by more people every year, as a water source. I understand Newark may

9 be expanding the water district that will now tap into Lake Ontario water. I could be wrong, but I

10 do know that more and more municipalities are depending on Lake Ontario water. (H-4) 

11

12 Comment: But a lot of things, talking about the jobs, and talking about the economic impact. I

13 just can't imagine taking a facility with the assessed value that plant has out of a town just like

14 Webster, and what the impact would be. I mean, we could probably sit down and even crunch

15 numbers, but it would be significant. And it would be even more significant, would be my

16 guess, from my – what I see as a relative relationship between what the town of Ontario is like,

17 and what the town of Webster is like. So certainly you are going to have an impact there with

18 that reduced assessed value should that not have a plant, or some facility there. And, of

19 course, the job impact too. And I don't think we can really minimize it, in the economy these

20 days. The jobs, I know a lot of people right here in Webster, and in the surrounding area, do

21 work, rely on their jobs at the plant. So there certainly are the economic factors that are a

22 certainty would be negative. (I-1)

23

24 Comment: The reason is very simple for us; it is jobs for our members who live in this

25 community. Since the plant was built the Rochester Building Trades have been involved with

26 the building of the plant, and supplementing the RG&E personnel when it comes to maintaining

27 this plant. During shutdowns at the plant RG&E has always made sure that subcontractors

28 have hired local craftsmen to do their work. This has provided good paying, safe jobs for the

29 people that live in this community. (L-2)

30

31 Comment: Ginna provides jobs for our local residents. RG&E, now Energy East, is a

32 significant contributor to the tax base in the town of Ontario. This has enabled Ontario to

33 maintain a reasonable tax rate, and we hope this continues. RG&E has been a good neighbor. 

34 They have been sensitive to the immediate neighborhood by keeping the rural setting of

35 orchards and acres of green space. (M-5)

36

37 Comment: In the past there has been a problem in establishing an assessed value of Ginna

38 for local property tax purposes. Although this is a local and state issue, the relationship

39 between Energy East and the town of Ontario is a key factor in establishing a fair assessed

40 value. Although the ultimate assessed value of the property lies with the local assessor, it is

41 hoped that the good relationship with the town established by RG&E will continue. Energy
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-16 June 2003

1 East, albeit a new arrival, has yet to establish its credentials as a good neighbor, with

2 commitment to the health and welfare of Ontario, and the surrounding area. (M-8)

3

4 Comment: This past year the plant actually paid 30 percent of the tax bill. This revenue has

5 been very useful to the town in terms of developing the town, and also holding down the tax

6 rate. The 15 towns in Wayne County, Ontario has the lowest tax rate. I hope that with the

7 continued presence of the plant, it will continue to support a significant portion of our tax levy. 

8 Or in lieu of that, the negotiations, some kind of a pilot agreement between the town and

9 RG&E, and/or the county and the school district, and RG&E. (O-6)

10

11 Comment: It is a responsive neighbor to my town and county. The plant is a substantial

12 taxpayer in my county and provides several hundred jobs. (U-3)

13

14 Response: The comments are noted. Socioeconomic issues specific to the plant are Category

15 2 issues and will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the DSEIS. The comments did not provide

16 significant, new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

17

18 Comment: My major beef was what I call light pollution. And on cloudy nights, particularly in

19 the winter, the snow is orange, but it hardly has to do with the safety. (M-9)

20

21 Response: The comment is noted. Socioeconomic issues related to aesthetic impacts of the

22 plant during the license renewal term are Category 1 issues and were addressed in the GEIS. 

23 The comments did not provide significant, new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated

24 further.

25

26 Comment: Although the State Historic Preservation Office has deemed no effect for the

27 undertaking, the Seneca Nation THPO has concerns with the uncertainty of ground disturbing

28 activities related to the project. The location and the history of the area surrounding Ginna are

29 highly sensitive. The Seneca Nation THPO would like to be consulted, in the earliest planning

30 stages, on any ground disturbing activities that may occur. (S-4)

31

32 Response: The comment refers to Historic and Archaeological resources near Ginna. This

33 comment will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the DSEIS. 

34

35 Comment: The following text is suggested as a replacement to the first sentence of the

36 second paragraph of 2.12.1 on page 2-41: "The Monroe County Water Authority (MCWA),

37 which can produce 145 million gallons of treated water per day (mgd), was created by an act of

38 the New York State Legislature in 1950 and its legislation has been amended several times to

39 allow it to serve areas beyond Monroe County. Today the MCWA is a metropolitan regional

40 water purveyor, providing retail water service to most of Monroe County, several communities in

41 Genesee County and some small portions of Livingston and Ontario Counties. It exchanges
Appendix A

June 2003 A-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 water with the Town of Ontario, Wayne County, provides wholesale water service to the Wayne

2 County Water and Sewer Authority (WCW&SA), the Town and Village of Victor, Ontario

3 County, three communities in Genesee County, and four adjoining communities in Orleans

4 County." (T-1)

5

6 Response: The comment refers to the water use near Ginna. Water use will be discussed in

7 Chapter 4 of the DSEIS. The comment is editorial in nature and will be considered in writing

8 this section of the DSEIS. Although the comment will be considered editorially, it provides no

9 significant, new information to the environmental review of Ginna; therefore, the comment will

10 not be evaluated further in that context. 

11

12 A.1.7 Comments Concerning Land Use Issues

13

14 As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 land use issues include:

15

16  Onsite land use

17  Power line right of way

18

19 Comment: Department staff requested that RG&E provide an evaluation of the ongoing coastal

20 erosion onsite and at neighboring properties to the Environmental Report. A brief discussion

21 was provided. Department staff have concerns about the ongoing coastal erosion on both

22 sides of the shoreline protection. Subsequently, we have added a condition to the recent Article

23 34 Coastal Erosion Control Permit to RG&E, to require a survey of the existing shoreline.

24

25 We recommend that the ongoing coastal erosion issues be addressed in the SEIS. The survey

26 should be prepared in time for inclusion into the SEIS. We recommend that the Federal NEPA

27 process identify whether any additional shoreline protection is required to protect the facility

28 over the renewal permit term. (R-5)

29 Response: The comment refers to land use issues near Ginna. This issue will be addressed

30 in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the SEIS. 

31

32 A.1.8 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

33

34 As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 uranium fuel cycle and waste management

35 issues include:

36

37  Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel

38 and high level waste)

39  Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects)

40  Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposal)

41  Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-18 June 2003

1  Low-level waste storage and disposal

2  Mixed-waste storage and disposal

3  Onsite spent fuel

4  Nonradiological waste

5  Transportation

6

7 Comment: If plans go as scheduled, Yucca Mountain will then open up, as a storage facility,

8 and the waste will be trucked down 590, which is within two miles of my house, which is why I

9 have my potassium iodide. (C-1)

10

11 Comment: We touched on transporting nuclear waste, and also the containment chamber

12 safety requirements. What I'm trying to say here is that back in the '80s we had a way of

13 looking, had development money to work for isotope separation. Which says we can take

14 these rods and like a battery, make them over, and over again, maybe nine times on the

15 contract, but actually figure we could probably get about 20 uses out of them. Which means

16 the storage goes down, and you have to have them onsite. You can keep reusing them, and

17 recharging them. Did that whole science fall apart, or what? It was funded by – I was working

18 on that in Los Alamos, and also Lawrence Livermore had contracts for that. And it looked like it

19 had great hope. Did that ever turn out to be viable? (D-1)

20

21 Comment: And I don't know a lot of statistics, I can't quote a lot of this, but my big concern is

22 what happens to the waste from all of the thousands of nuclear power plants around the

23 country, that we keep accumulating the waste, and keep piling it up, and keep stockpiling it with

24 half-life of thousands of years, without any concern for what is going to happen to the people in

25 the future that will have to deal with it. (E-3)

26

27 Comment: When the plant was built there was no spent fuel on the site. It was supposed to

28 be removed. Politics and logistics are leading other nukes to use dry cask storage onsite. Will

29 this plant, how long will it be there, what about security for it? (H-7)

30

31 Comment: Secondary is what happens to the waste products. We were assured, by the

32 Federal government, I don't recall it was – I believe it was the AEC at the time that this material

33 would be trucked away. And indeed, for a while, I believe it did go to West Valley, until its

34 closure. (M-2)

35

36 Comment: When Ginna started this operation, in 1970, the spent nuclear waste was trucked

37 out of this area to West Valley. This was changed several years ago, and the waste is now

38 stored onsite. We believe that the local citizens should know when this spent fuel will be

39 removed from the present site. The answer to this issue should be part of the permitting

40 process. The Federal government has the responsibility for this, and has committed billions of

41 dollars to the proper storage of spent nuclear fuel. When will this happen? (M-7)
Appendix A

June 2003 A-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Comment: Also, I'm very interested in whether or not the environment has been taken into

2 account in terms of what happens to exhausted fuel. (N-1)

3

4 Comment: Although the Department does not have concerns regarding State regulated

5 hazardous waste storage, staff recommend that the future handling of the spent-fuel inventory

6 and containment be addressed in the SEIS. (R-4)

7

8 Comment: The environmental impact statement should analyze the ability of the plant to store

9 its spent nuclear fuel on plant property. The environmental impact statement should analyze

10 the risks of transporting the spent nuclear fuel to the Federal repository. This analysis should

11 include potential truck routes and rail routes, and depending on the routes, should be

12 coordinated with the Seneca Nation regarding the impacts to cultural resources along potential

13 transportation corridors. (S-3)

14

15 Response: Onsite storage and offsite disposal of spent nuclear fuel are Category 1 issues. 

16 The safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite has been

17 evaluated by the NRC, and as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC generically

18 determined that such storage could be accomplished without significant environmental impact. 

19 In the Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite

20 for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life, which may include the term of a

21 renewed license. At or before the end of that period, the fuel would be moved to a permanent

22 repository. The GEIS is based upon the assumption that storage of the spent fuel onsite is not

23 permanent. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS regarding license renewal for Ginna will

24 be prepared based on the same assumption. The comments did not provide significant, new

25 information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

26

27 A.1.9 Comments Concerning Alternative Energy Sources

28

29 Comment: And I don't understand why we are taking this risk. I don't understand why we are

30 not talking about wind generation on Lake Ontario. I just – I think we need to look at the

31 alternatives. We are subsidizing the nuclear industry. Bush's energy plan calls for a $2.9 billion

32 subsidy to nuclear industry, and the solar industry's subsidy would be enough to build about two

33 miles of Federal interstate. So it seems like we need to look at the alternatives. And I'm not,

34 myself, and the hundreds of members of Metro Justice, are not willing to take the risk involved.

35 (C-3)

36

37 Comment: Virtually every new power plant in New York depends on natural gas as the fuel of

38 choice. And as we have learned, in the past several years, the price of natural gas can

39 fluctuate greatly. This means that the price of electricity from gas fired power plants, would also

40 correspondingly fluctuate. To further complicate matters, even for those new plants receiving

41 siting approval, plant developers are finding it difficult, to impossible, to obtain financing. The
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-20 June 2003

1 New York state power plant siting law is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. And a

2 number of older plants may need substantial new investment, if it is available, to meet new

3 environmental standards. (G-7)

4

5 Comment: And today there are more efficient, cleaner, and safer ways to make electricity.

6 (H-2)

7

8 Comment: Finally, the world of energy production has changed since 1960. We really don't

9 need nuclear plants any more. There are cleaner, safer ways to produce power. Denmark now

10 gets about ten percent of its power from wind. Their goal is half by 2030. California just

11 passed a renewable energy requirement of 20 percent in 20 years. We could do this in New

12 York. There have also been huge improvements in cogeneration technology, which is very

13 much more efficient than the large centralized plants. I would just add, I scribbled this down

14 during the meeting, and then it was brought up by someone else, that a good environmental

15 impact statement does consider alternatives. I'm glad to hear that they will be considering

16 alternative ways of producing electricity. (H-10)

17

18 Comment: And as far as that tax base concern there could be other things, perhaps even

19 another generating facility, that would be safer and cleaner, that could pick up some of that

20 economic and tax concern, and it could even enhance the area's economic activity. (H-15)

21

22 Comment: And you heard about, a couple of years ago, how terrible it was to live out in

23 California, and be a resident, and try to run a business out there with the rolling blackouts, or

24 brownouts, or whatever they were having, and we have not had any of those types of

25 experiences, at least in this part of New York State, and not that I'm very widely aware of,

26 throughout our state. And to think that we would have to find something to replace that. And if

27 we were not to relicense a lot of these facilities around the state, and the country, we would

28 have to find a whole lot of things to replace a lot of that energy that is being created, that is just

29 another side of what is to be looked at. (I-3)

30

31 Response: The comments are noted. The GEIS included an extensive discussion of

32 alternative energy sources. Environmental impacts associated with various reasonable

33 alternatives to renewal of the operating licenses for Ginna will be discussed in Chapter 8 of the

34 DSEIS. The comments did not provide significant, new information; therefore, they will not be

35 evaluated further.

36

37 A.1.10 Comments Concerning Safety Issues Within the Scope of License Renewal

38

39 Comment: And I wasn't quite clear on how you are going to evaluate, as part of the renewal

40 process, the long-term degradation issues that are very prominent in nuclear power plants

41 across the country, Ohio being one, Virginia another one. The cracks and the various issues
Appendix A

June 2003 A-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 that have surfaced and have caused great concerns in a number of communities across the

2 country, how do you propose to make the public aware of the process that you are going to be

3 using in evaluating degradation? (A-1)

4

5 Comment: That is, obviously fine, because that is part of the day-to-day inspection. I'm talking

6 about a 20 year out in the future evaluation by the NRC, how are you going to go about

7 evaluating long-term degradation on that basis? (A-2)

8

9 Comment: There has to be, in my view, if you are extending a plant that has an age of 30 plus

10 years, another 20 years, if you are giving approval for that, there has to be something concrete,

11 in my view, that has to be given to the public, that estimates the degradation factors that this

12 plant will experience, over time, and gives the public some comfort that these aging plants that

13 many, many people feel should be shut down yesterday, are actually able to stay online safely

14 for another 20 years. (A-3)

15

16 Comment: I'm with the Citizens Awareness Network. And just for clarity's sake, I wanted to

17 sort of test this. It seems like the answer to this woman's question is that, no, the NRC isn't, as

18 part of the relicensing process, going to do a systemic review of the aging and degradation of

19 the reactor. (B-1)

20

21 Comment: I understand that. I mean, what I'm saying is, you know, it seemed like the

22 question was whether as part of reevaluating the relicensing application, whether NRC does,

23 you know, an actual material condition inspection review, to determine whether this reactor

24 could safely operate for another 20 years. And didn't this used to be included as part of the

25 relicensing process? And there were certain reactors that were preparing their applications that

26 determined that the reactor was already too degraded, like Yankee Rowe? (B-2)

27

28 Comment: And it is instructive to talk about the reactor vessel head, in terms of inspections

29 and replacements. In the early 1990s, based on French experience, we began to perform

30 additional inspections, visual inspections, on our reactor vessel head. In 1999 we took the

31 opportunity, with our extended ten-year end service inspection to do detailed, non-destructive

32 examinations, and visual inspections, of our vessel head. In each of those cases we saw no

33 degradation, no defects. We performed additional inspections, both non-destructive

34 examinations, and visual inspections, in our most recent refueling outage, in 2002. And, again,

35 saw no degradation, and no defects. Nevertheless, looking to the future, even just to 2009, we

36 reached the conclusion to replace that reactor vessel head to provide us an economic benefit,

37 and to give us additional margin and assurance. That vessel head will be replaced in the fall of

38 2003, our next refueling outage. (G-3)

39

40 Comment: Some of its components were designed to last its licensed life. There have been

41 many other age related failures besides this one. Nine Mile core shroud, that steam generator
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 A-22 June 2003

1 rupture in 1982 at Ginna was not anticipated; embrittlement of the reactor vessel, these all

2 surprised the experts. There are probably going to be more surprises as these plants age.

3 (H-9)

4

5 Response: The comments are noted. The NRC's environmental review is confined to

6 environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. 

7 To the extent that the comments pertain to safety of equipment and aging within the scope of

8 license renewal, these issues will be addressed during the parallel safety analysis review

9 performed under 10 CFR Part 54. Operational safety issues are outside the scope of 10 CFR

10 Part 51 and will not be evaluated further in this SEIS. The comments provide no new

11 information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the context of the environmental

12 review. However, the comments will be forwarded to the project manager for the license

13 renewal safety review for consideration.

14
Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement
June 2003 B-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement

1 The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of

2 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The statement was

3 prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from other

4 NRC organizations and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Representatives of

5 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Argonne National

6 Laboratory, Energy Research, Inc., and the Information Systems Laboratory also participated in

7 the review. 

8

9 Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

10 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

11 John Tappert Section Chief

12 Robert Schaaf Project Manager

13 Jennifer Davis Historic and Archaeological Resources,

Project Support

14 Barry Zalcman Environmental Program Manager

15 Michael Masnik Ecology

16 Gregory Suber Project Management 

17 James Wilson Ecology, Alternatives

18 Robert Palla Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(a) 19

20 Duane Neitzel Task Leader

21 Daniel Tano Deputy Task Leader

22 Amoret Bunn Aquatic Ecology

23 Katherine Cort Socioeconomics, Alternatives

24 James Droppo Air Quality

25 J. Van Ramsdell Air Quality

26 Michael Sackschewsky Terrestrial Ecology, Alternatives

27 Lance Vail Water Use, Hydrology

28 Cary Counts Technical Editor

29 Barbara Wilson Publications Assistant

30 Debora Schulz Document Design

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory(b) 31

32 Charlotte Van Warmerdam Radiation Protection
Appendix B

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 B-2 June 2003

Los Alamos National Laboratory(c) 1

2 Daniel Pava Land Use

Argonne National Laboratory(d) 3

4 Bruce Verhaaren Historical and Archeological Resources

5 Information Systems Laboratory

6 Kimberly Green Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

7 James Meyer Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

8 (a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by Battelle

9 Memorial Institute.

10 (b) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated for DOE by the University of California.

11 (c) Los Alamos National Laboratory is operated for DOE by the University of California.

12 (d) Argonne National Laboratory is operated for the DOE by the University of Chicago.

13

14
Appendix C

Chronology of Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation’s

Application for License Renewal of

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
June 2003 C-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

Appendix C

Chronology of Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation’s

Application for License Renewal of

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

1 This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

2 Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) and other

3 correspondence related to the NRC staff’s environmental review, under 10 CFR Part 51, of

4 RG&E’s application for renewal of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) operating

5 license (OL). All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information,

6 have been placed in the Commission’s Public Document Room, at One White Flint North,

7 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD, and are available electronically from the Public

8 Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following web address:

9 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's

10 Agencywide Document Access and Management Systems (ADAMS), which provides text and

11 image files of NRC's public documents in the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of

12 ADAMS. The ADAMS accession numbers for each document are included below.

13

14 July 30, 2002 Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, to NRC, submitting the

15 application for the renewal of the Ginna OL

16 (Accession No. ML022210378)

17

18 July 30, 2002 Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, to New York State

19 Department of State Division of Coastal Resources, concerning the

20 coastal management program consistency certification for Ginna

21 (Accession No. ML022490337)

22

23 August 9, 2002 Letter from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

24 to RG&E, regarding Notice of Complete Application for Ginna

25 (Accession No. ML022470358)

26

27 August 13, 2002 Letter from NRC to Ms. Carolyn Johnson, Rochester Public Library,

28 concerning the maintenance of reference material for the Ginna license

29 renewal application (Accession No. ML022260288)

30

31 August 14, 2002 Letter from NRC to Ms. Laura Viau, Ontario Public Library, regarding the

32 maintenance of reference material for the Ginna license renewal

33 application (Accession No. ML022260497)

34
Appendix C

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 C-2 June 2003

1 August 19, 2002 Letter from NRC to Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, regarding the receipt

2 and availability of the license renewal application for Ginna

3 (Accession No. ML022320189)

4

5 October 7, 2002 Letter from NRC to Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, concerning the Notice

6 of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and conduct

7 scoping process for license renewal for Ginna (Accession

8 No. ML022810077)

9

10 October 7, 2002 Letter from NRC to Mr. Raymond Mosely, Director, Office of the Federal

11 Register, concerning the Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental

12 impact statement and conduct scoping process for license renewal for

13 Ginna (Accession No. ML022810365)

14

15 November 1, 2002 Comment letter from Mr. Frank J. Guelli, Supervisor, Town of Walworth,

16 concerning the license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. 

17 ML030230704)

18

19 November 1, 2002 NRC letter to Mr. Leroy Howard, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma,

20 pertaining to the license renewal application for Ginna

21 (Accession No. ML023180609)

22

23 November 1, 2002 Letter from NRC to Mr. Irving Powles, Jr., Onondaga Nation, regarding

24 the license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. ML023180634)

25

26 November 1, 2002 NRC letter to Mr. Vernon Isaac, Cayuga Nation of New York, concerning

27 the license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. ML023180647)

28

29 November 1, 2002 NRC letter to Mr. Cyrus Schindler, Seneca Nation of New York,

30 pertaining to the license-renewal application for Ginna (Accession

31 No. ML023180681)

32

33 November 1, 2002 Letter from NRC to Mr. Raymond Halbritter, Oneida Indian Nation of

34 New York, concerning license renewal application for Ginna (Accession

35 No. ML023190078)

36

37 November 1, 2002 NRC letter to Mr. Kevin Jonathan, Tonawanda Band of Senecas,

38 regarding license renewal application for Ginna (Accession

39 No. ML023190126)

40
Appendix C

June 2003 C-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 November 1, 2002 Letter from NRC to Mr. Leo R. Henry, Tuscarora Nation, pertaining to

2 license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. ML023190139)

3

4 November 1, 2002 NRC letter to Ms. Hilda Smoke, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, concerning the

5 license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. ML023190147)

6

7 November 1, 2002 Letter from NRC to Mr. Gerald Danforth, Oneida Tribe of Indians of

8 Wisconsin, relating to the license renewal application for Ginna

9 (Accession No. ML023190171)

10

11 November 27, 2002 NRC letter to Mr. David A. Stilwell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

12 requesting comment on the license renewal application for Ginna

13 (Accession No. ML023330475)

14

15 December 2, 2002 Letter from NRC to Ms. Patricia A. Kurkul, National Marine Fisheries

16 Service, seeking comment on the license renewal application for Ginna

17 (Accession No. ML023450622)

18

19 December 11, 2002 Comment letter from NYSDEC to NRC pertaining to the license renewal

20 application for Ginna (Accession No. ML023600074)

21

22 December 17, 2002 Summary of November 6, 2002, public scoping meetings for the RG&E 

23 license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. ML023530096)

24 Also includes transcripts from public meetings held November 6, 2002

25 (ML023530107 [afternoon session] and ML023530120 [evening session])

26

27 December 23, 2002 Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, submitting supplemental

28 information to support the NRC staff’s environmental review of the license

29 renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. ML030140009)

30

31 December 26, 2002 NRC letter to Dr. Robert C. Mecredy , RG&E, requesting additional

32 information regarding severe accident mitigation alternatives for Ginna

33 (Accession No. ML023600233)

34

35 January 6, 2003 Comment letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pertaining to Ginna’s

36 license renewal application for Ginna (Accession No. ML030150605)

37

38 January 14, 2003 NRC letter to Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, concerning request for

39 additional information related to the staff’s review of the license renewal

40 Environmental Report for Ginna (Accession No. ML030140526)
Appendix C

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 C-4 June 2003

1 January 23, 2003 Letter from NYSDEC to RG&E concerning 401 Water Quality Certification

2 – Notice of Incomplete Application (Accession No. ML030560894)

3

4 January 23, 2003 Letter from NYSDEC to RG&E concerning SPDES Permit Modification

5 Issuance (Accession No. ML030370414)

6

7 January 31, 2003 Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, in response to NRC letter of

8 December 26, 2002, request for additional information regarding severe

9 accident mitigation alternatives for Ginna (Accession No. ML030410599)

10

11 February 26, 2003 Letter from Kimberly Merchant, NYSDEC to Robert Schaaf, NRC,

12 regarding the Master Habitat Database Report for Wayne County

13 (Accession No. ML031220483)

14

15 February 28, 2003 Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, providing additional

16 information in response to NRC letter of December 26, 2002, requesting

17 additional information regarding severe accident mitigation alternatives

18 for Ginna (Accession No. ML030660225)

19

20 March 13, 2003 Letter from Dr. Robert C. Mecredy, RG&E, to NRC responding to the

21 staff’s request for additional information related to the environmental

22 review for Ginna (Accession No. ML030800562)

23

24 April 16, 2003 Letter from Kimberly Merchant, NYSDEC, to J. Prill, RG&E, regarding

25 NYSDEC-initiated addition of a thermal study associated with the license

26 renewal for Ginna (Accession No. ML031150328)

27

28 May 8, 2003 Memo from Robert G. Schaaf, NRC, to file, regarding telecommunication

29 with RG&E to clarify responses to NRC requests for additional

30 information concerning severe accident mitigation alternatives

31 (Accession No. ML031340302)
Appendix D

Organizations Contacted
June 2003 D-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

Appendix D

Organizations Contacted

1 During the course of the staff’s independent review of environmental impacts from operations

2 during the renewal term, the following Federal, State, regional, and local agencies were

3 contacted:

4

5 Cayuga Nation of New York, Versailles, New York

6

7 Department of Human Development, Cornell Migrant Program, Alton, New York

8

9 Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council, Rochester, New York

10

11 Genesee Transportation Council, Rochester, New York

12

13 Monroe County Planning and Development Department, Rochester, New York

14

15 National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts

16

17 New York State Department of State, Albany, New York

18

19 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Avon, New York

20

21 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, New York

22

23 Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Oneida, New York

24

25 Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin

26

27 Onondaga Nation, Nedrow, New York

28

29 Salvation Army, Newark, New York

30

31 Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami, Oklahoma

32

33 Seneca Nation of New York, Irving, New York

34

35 St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Hogansburg, New York

36

37 Tonawanda Band of Senecas, Basom, New York
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 D-2 June 2003

1 Town of Monroe, Monroe, New York

2

3 Town of Ontario Assessor, Ontario, New York

4

5 Town of Ontario Supervisor, Ontario, New York

6

7 Tuscarora Nation, Lewiston, New York

8

9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cortland, New York

10

11 Wayne County Economic Development Corporation, Lyons, New York

12

13 Wayne County Historian, Lisle, New York

14

15 Wayne County Emergency Management System, Lyons, New York

16

17 Wayne County Nursing Home, Lyons, New York

18

19 Wayne County Planning Department, Lyons, New York

20

21 Wayne County Real Property Tax Services, Lyons, New York

22

23 Wayne County Workforce Development, Lyons, New York

24
Appendix E

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Compliance Status and Consultation

Correspondence
June 2003 E-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

Appendix E

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Compliance Status and Consultation

Correspondence

1 Correspondence received during the evaluation process of the application for renewal of the

2 operating license for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant is identified in Table E-1. Copies of the

3 correspondence are included at the end of this appendix.

4

5 The licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained from Federal, State,

6 regional, and local authorities for Ginna are listed in Table E-2.

7

8 Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence

9

10 Source Recipient Date of Letter

11 New York State Department of

12 Parks, Recreation, and Historic

13 Preservation (R. L. Pierpont)

Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation (D. J. Mooney)

October 31, 2001

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

15 Commission (P. T. Kuo)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(D. A. Stilwell)

November 27, 2002

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

17 Commission (P. T. Kuo)

National Marine Fisheries Service

(P. A. Kurkul)

December 2, 2002

18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

19 (D. A. Stilwell)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (P. T. Kuo)

January 6, 2003

20 New York State Department of

21 Environmental Conservation

22 (K. Merchant)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (R. Schaaf)

February 26, 2003

23

24
1 Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other App

2 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant34 Agency Authority Description Number

Expiration

Date Rem

5 NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license,

Ginna

DPR-18 09/18/2009 Authorizes o

Plant.

6 FWS Endangered Species Act,

Section 7 (33 U.S.C. 1341)

Consultation FWS letter in

Appendix E.

7 New York State Office of8 Parks, Recreation and9 Historic Preservation

Section 106 of theNational HistoricPreservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f)

Consultation Letter from Ruth

Pierpoint, HistoricPreservationField ServicesBureau to RG&E,10/31/2001

The NationaPreservation Federal ageninto account any undertakdistrict, site, structure, or included in oinclusion in tRegister of HThe New Yoof Parks, ReHistoric PresHistoric PresServices Burmined that reGinna OL wiEffect upon cresources in inclusion in tRegister of H

10 U.S. Department of11 Transportation

49 CFR Part 107,Subpart G

Certificate ofRegistration forTransportation ofHazardous Materials

062002550003K 06/30/2008 Transportatio

hazardous m

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-2 June 2003
1 Table E-2. (contd)

23 Agency Authority Description Number

Expiration

Date Rem

4 New York State Department5 of State

Federal Coastal ZoneManagement Act(16 USC 1451 et seq.)

ConsistencyDetermination

Submittedon07/30/2002

State must cobject to the certification.

6 NYSDEC NYS ECL Article 40 Hazardous Substance

Bulk StorageRegistration Certificate

8-000170 07/18/2003

7 NYSDEC NYS ECL Part 675 Water Withdrawal

Registration

NYGLWR0002810 07/10/2002 Water withdr

Lake Ontariosubmitted 6/

8 NYSDEC NYS ECL 11-0515 (1),

NYCRR Part 175

New York State Fishand Wildlife License

LCP01-756 12/31/2002 Collection an

of fish and w

9 NYSDEC Clean Water Act, Section

402 (33 USC 1341); NYSECL Title 8 of Article 17

State PollutionDischarge EliminationSystem (SPDES) Permit

NY-0000493 02/01/2008 Documen’ts 

with CWA stDischarge of to waters of 

10 NYSDEC Clean Water Act, Section

401 (33 USC 1341); NYSECL Title 8 of Article 17

401 Certification NA Application

submitted10/07/2002

Compliance Certification during 2003.

11 CFR - Code of Federal Regulations12 FWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service13 SPDES - State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System14 NRC - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission15 NYCRR - New York Code of Rules and Regulations16 NYS - New York State17 NYS ECL - New York State Environmental Conservation Law18 NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation19 NYSDOS - New York State Department of State20 USC - United States Code21

June 2003 E-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-4 June 2003

1
Appendix E

June 2003 E-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-6 June 2003

1
Appendix E

June 2003 E-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-8 June 2003

1
Appendix E

June 2003 E-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-10 June 2003

1
Appendix E

June 2003 E-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 E-12 June 2003

1
Appendix E

June 2003 E-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1
Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

June 2003 F-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

1 The following table lists those environmental issues listed in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996,1999)(a) 2 and 10 CFR

3 Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are not applicable to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

4 Plant (Ginna) because of plant or site characteristics.

5

6 Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Ginna

7

8 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

9 Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

10 SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

11 1 4.2.1.2.2 Issue applies to a saltwater Altered salinity gradients

receiving water body, which

Ginna does not have.

12 Water-use conflicts (plants with cooling

13 ponds or cooling towers using makeup

14 water from a small river with low flow)

2 4.3.2.1

4.4.2.1

Ginna cooling systems do

not use makeup water from a

small river with low flow.

15 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH COOLING TOWER BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

16 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early

17 life stages

1 4.3.3 Ginna does not dissipate

heat using cooling towers.

18 1 4.3.3 Ginna does not dissipate Impingement of fish and shellfish

heat using cooling towers.

19 1 4.3.3 Ginna does not dissipate Heat shock

heat using cooling towers.
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 F-2 June 2003

1 Table F-1. (cont)

2 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

3 Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

4 HUMAN HEALTH

5 Microbiological organisms (public health)

6 (plants using lakes or canals or cooling

7 towers that discharge into a small river)

2 4.3.6 Issue applies only to heated

effluents discharged into a

small river.

8 Microbiological organisms (occupational

9 health)

1 4.3.6 Ginna does not dissipate

heat using cooling towers.

10 GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

11 Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and

12 service water, and dewatering; plants

13 that use >100 gpm)

2 4.8.1.1

4.8.2.1

Ginna uses <100 gpm of

groundwater.

14 Groundwater-use conflicts (plants using

15 cooling towers withdrawing makeup

16 water from a small river)

2 4.8.1.3

4.4.2.1

Ginna does not dissipate

heat using cooling towers.

17 Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney

18 wells)

2 4.8.1.4 Ginna does not have or use

Ranney wells.

19 Groundwater quality degradation

20 (Ranney wells)

1 4.8.2.2 Ginna does not have or use

Ranney wells.

21 Groundwater quality degradation

22 (saltwater intrusion)

1 4.8.2.1 Ginna is not located near

saltwater.

23 Groundwater quality degradation (cooling

24 ponds in salt marshes)

1 4.8.3 Ginna does not have cooling

ponds in salt marshes.

25 Groundwater quality degradation (cooling

26 ponds at inland sites)

2 4.8.3 Ginna does not use cooling

ponds.
Appendix F

June 2003 F-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table F-1. (cont)

2 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

3 Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

4 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

5 Cooling tower impacts on crops and

6 ornamental vegetation

1 4.3.4 Ginna does not dissipate

heat using cooling towers.

7 1 4.3.5.1 Issue applies to a heat Cooling tower impacts on native plants

dissipation system feature,

cooling towers, which Ginna

does not have.

8 1 4.3.5.2 Issue applies to a heat Bird collisions with cooling towers

dissipation system feature,

cooling towers, which Ginna

does not have.

9 Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial

10 resources

1 4.4.4 Ginna does not use cooling

ponds.

11

12 F.1 References

13

14 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

15 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

16

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

18 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

19

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

21 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

22 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

23 Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

24
1 Appendix G

2

3

4

5 NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe

6 Accident Mitigation Alternatives

7 for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

8 in Support of License Renewal Application
June 2003 G-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Appendix G

2

3 NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe 

4 Accident Mitigation Alternatives

5 for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

6 in Support of License Renewal Application

7

8

9 G.1 Introduction

10

11 Rochester Gas and Electric (RG&E) submitted an assessment of severe accident mitigation

12 alternatives (SAMAs) for the R.E. Ginna (Ginna) Nuclear Power Plant as part of the Ginna

13 Environmental Report (ER) (RG&E 2002). This assessment was based on the most recent

14 Ginna probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) available at that time, a plant-specific offsite

15 consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

16 (MACCS2) code, and insights from the Ginna Individual Plant Examination for External Events

17 (IPEEE) (RG&E 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs,

18 RG&E considered SAMA analyses performed for other operating plants that have submitted

19 license renewal applications, as well as industry and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

20 (NRC) documents that discuss potential plant improvements, such as NUREG-1560 (NRC

21 1997a) and NUREG-1742 (NRC 2002a). RG&E also identified SAMAs that were dominant

22 contributors to core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) based

23 on the plant-specific PSA. RG&E assessed the costs and benefits associated with each of the

24 potential SAMAs and concluded that two of the candidate SAMAs evaluated are potentially cost

25 beneficial for Ginna.

26

27 Based on a review of the SAMA assessment, the NRC issued a request for additional

28 information (RAI) to RG&E by letter dated December 26, 2002 (NRC 2002a). Key questions

29 concerned (1) dominant risk contributors at Ginna and the SAMAs that address these

30 contributors, (2) the impact on dose consequences if all release categories were considered

31 rather than just large early release categories, (3) the potential impact of uncertainties on the

32 study results, and (4) detailed information on several specific candidate SAMAs. RG&E

33 submitted additional information on January 31, 2003, and February 28, 2003, in response to

34 the RAI (RG&E 2003a, 2003b). The February 28, 2003, response included a completely

35 revised SAMA analysis (Section 4.14 and Appendix E of the ER) based on an updated version

36 of the PSA. In these responses, RG&E provided tables containing the results of importance

37 analyses, revised results based on the removal of scrubbing of fission product releases, and an

38 assessment of the impacts of uncertainties. RG&E’s responses addressed the staff’s concerns

39 and reaffirmed that only two SAMAs would be cost beneficial.

40

41 An assessment of SAMAs for Ginna is presented as follows.
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-2 June 2003

1 G.2 Estimate of Risk for Ginna

2

3 RG&E’s estimates of offsite risk at Ginna are summarized in Section G.2.1. The summary is

4 followed by the staff’s review of RG&E’s risk estimates in Section G.2.2.

5

6 G.2.1 RG&E’s Risk Estimates

7

8 Two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for the risk estimates used in the SAMA

9 analysis: (1) the Ginna Level 1 and 2 PSA model, which is an updated version of the Individual

10 Plant Examination (IPE) (RG&E 1994, 1997b, 1997c), and (2) a supplemental analysis of offsite

11 consequences and economic impacts (essentially a Level 3 PSA model) developed specifically

12 for the SAMA analysis. The Level 1 and 2 PSA used as the basis for the SAMA analysis is the

13 most recent PSA model of record, and is referred to as Version 4.2. The scope of the Ginna

14 PSA does not include full consideration of seismic events. However, the dominant fire and

15 internal flooding sequences are included in the PSA.

16

The baseline CDF for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is approximately 4 x 10-5 17 per year. 

18 The CDF is based on the risk assessment for internally initiated events at power and at

19 shutdown, and the dominant external events, specifically, fire and internal flooding at power. 

20 RG&E did not include the contribution of risk from seismic events within the Ginna risk

21 estimates. It is RG&E’s position that due to the recent and extensive evaluations and

22 modifications performed as part of IPEEE and Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG)

23 activities, seismic events have been adequately addressed and need not be explicitly treated in

24 the SAMA analysis (additional discussion provided in Section G.2.2).

25

26 The breakdown of CDF by initiating event/accident type is provided in Table G-1. Internal

27 events at power contribute about 33 percent of the total CDF and are composed of (1) steam

28 generator tube ruptures (15 percent of the total), (2) loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) less

29 than 5 cm (2 in.) (6 percent of the total), (3) station blackout (SBO) (5 percent of the total),

30 (4) LOCAs greater than 5 cm (2 in.) (2 percent of the total), and (5) interfacing system LOCAs

31 and anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) (each about 1 percent of the total) (RG&E

32 2003b). Shutdown events represent about 17 percent of the total CDF (RG&E 2003b). 

33 External event initiators represent about 50 percent of the total CDF and are composed of fire

34 initiators (28 percent of the total CDF) and floods (22 percent of the total CDF) (RG&E 2003b). 

35

36 The Level 2 PSA model has also been updated since the IPE. As described in the RAI

37 responses (RG&E 2003b), results from the previous detailed Level 2 analysis were converted to

38 the simplified LERF methodology described in NUREG/CR-6595 (NRC 1999a). In the updated 
Appendix G

June 2003 G-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table G-1. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Core Damage Frequency (Revision 4.2 of PSA)

2

3 Contributor CDF (per year) Percent of Total CDF

4 Internal Events – At Power

5 Transients 1.0 x 10-6 3

6 Station Blackout (SBO) 2.1 x 10-6 5

7 Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) 2.0 x 10-7 1

8 Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 6.0 x 10-6 15

9 Loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) <2 inches 2.6 x 10-6 6

10 LOCAs >2 inches 7.0 x 10-7 2

11 Interfacing system LOCA (ISLOCA) 2.5 x 10-7 1

12 Internal Events – Shutdown 6.8 x 10-6 17

13 CDF from internal events 2.0 x 10-5 50

14 External Events

15 Fire 1.1 x 10-5 28

16 Flood 8.8 x 10-6 22

17 CDF from external events 2.0 x 10-5 50

18 Total CDF 4.0 x 10-5 100

19

20 analysis, the 25 source term categories (STCs) used in the IPE were rebinned into 11 release

21 category bins, each of which was assigned a representative source term based on the original

22 MAAP analyses performed for the IPE. The conditional probabilities and release characteristics

23 associated with each release category were provided in response to an RAI (RG&E 2003b). An

24 explanation of the binning process and a mapping of the STCs to release category bins was

25 also provided (RG&E 2003c).

26

27 The offsite consequences and economic impact analyses use the MELCOR MACCS2 code,

28 Version 1.12, to determine the offsite risk impacts on the surrounding environment and public. 

29 Inputs for this analysis include plant-specific and site-specific input values for core radionuclide

30 inventory, source term and release characteristics, site meteorological data, projected

31 population distribution (within a 80-km [50-mi] radius) for the year 2030, emergency response

32 evacuation modeling, and economic data.

33

34 In the ER, RG&E estimated the dose to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the Ginna site to

35 be approximately 0.163 person-sievert (Sv) (16.300 person-rem) per year (RG&E 2003b). The

36 breakdown of the total population dose by containment release mode is summarized in
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-4 June 2003

1 Table G-2. Bypass events (steam generator tube rupture [SGTR] and interfacing system

2 loss-of-coolant accident [ISLOCA]) and late containment failures dominate the population dose

3 risk at Ginna.

4

5 Table G-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode

6

7 Containment Release Mode

Population Dose

Percent

Contribution

Person-Sv

Per Year

Person-Rem

Per Year

SGTR(a) 8 0.063 6.3 39

9 ISLOCAs 0.044 4.4 27

10 Early containment failure 0.020 2.0 12

Late containment failure(b) 11 0.030 3.0 19

12 No containment failure 0.006 0.6 3

13 Total 0.163 16.300 100

14 (a) Includes thermally induced SGTR.

15 (b) Includes contribution from shutdown events.

16

17 G.2.2 Staff’s Review of RG&E Risk Estimates

18

19 RG&E's determination of offsite risk at Ginna is based on the following three major elements of

20 analysis:

21

22  the Level 1 and 2 risk models that form the bases for the 1994 IPE and 1997 IPEEE

23 submittals (RG&E 1994, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1998a. 1998b, 1998c)

24

25  the major modifications to the IPE model that have been incorporated in the Ginna PSA

26

27  the MACCS2 analyses performed to translate fission product release frequencies from

28 the level 2 PSA model into offsite consequence measures.

29

30 Each of these analyses was reviewed to determine the acceptability of RG&E's risk estimates

31 for the SAMA analysis, as summarized below. 

32

33 The staff's review of the Ginna IPE is described in an NRC report dated September 16, 1997

34 (NRC 1997b). In that review, the staff evaluated the methodology, models, data, and

35 assumptions used to estimate the CDF and characterize containment performance and fission

36 product releases. The staff concluded that RG&E's analyses met the intent of Generic Letter

37 88-20 (NRC 1988); that is, the IPE was of adequate quality to be used to look for design or

38 operational vulnerabilities. The staff’s review primarily focused on the licensee’s ability to

39 examine Ginna for severe accident vulnerabilities and not specifically on the detailed findings or
Appendix G

June 2003 G-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 quantification estimates. Overall, the staff believed that the Ginna IPE was of adequate quality

2 to be used as a tool in searching for areas with high potential for risk reduction and to assess

3 such risk reductions, especially when the risk models are used in conjunction with insights,

4 such as those from risk importance, sensitivity, and uncertainty analyses.

5

6 In the IPE, RG&E identified five vulnerabilities as follows:

7

8 1. Relays for steam generator low-level actuation of auxiliary feedwater (AFW). The relays for

9 this signal must be energized to actuate the AFW; however, they are currently powered by a

10 non-safety bus that is unavailable upon a loss of offsite power.

11

12 2. ISLOCA through penetration 111. A LOCA outside containment through penetration 111

13 fails all residual heat removal (RHR) due to the low elevation of the RHR pump pits.

14

15 3. Standby AFW system out-of-service activities. Currently, both trains of this system can be

16 taken out of service for up to 7 days; however, it is credited for providing steam generator

17 cooling water for certain LOCAs outside containment.

18

19 4. Charging pump suction. Upon loss of dc control power or instrument air, the charging pump

20 suction line fails to open the volume control tank, which may be empty because its supply

21 source will have been eliminated as a result of the loss of power or air.

22

23 5. Intermediate building ventilation. The preferred AFW pumps are located in the basement of

24 the intermediate building, which is ventilated via either building exhaust fans or natural

25 circulation from a fire door opening; however, only one train of the exhaust fans is powered

26 by the emergency diesel generators.

27

28 In an RAI, the staff questioned the current status of these vulnerabilities and whether any

29 unresolved vulnerabilities were included in the SAMA evaluation. In response to the RAI,

30 RG&E stated that items 1 and 3 had been resolved through plant modifications. Items 2 and 4,

31 although considered by RG&E to be adequately addressed based on further review under the

32 IPE program, are covered by SAMAs 3, 4, and 5. RG&E indicated that item 5 was originally

33 identified as a result of overly conservative assumptions in the PSA model, and based on a

34 more realistic assessment, it was reduced to a no-action status (RG&E 2003a). The staff

35 inquired further about the conservative assumptions contained in the model. During a

36 telephone conversation, RG&E explained that there are two methods of accomplishing

37 ventilation within the intermediate building: (1) natural circulation via Fire Door F36 and (2)

38 forced ventilation by the intermediate building exhaust fans (NRC 2003). Because only one

39 train of the exhaust fans are diesel generator-backed, the three AFW pumps rely on the

40 passive cooling in an SBO event in which the diesel generator is inoperable. A reanalysis of the
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-6 June 2003

1 building’s ventilation determined that no active cooling is required for AFW; therefore, this item

2 is no longer an item of concern.

3

4 The IPE also identified an issue associated with the dc electrical configuration that could result

5 in a common mode failure of the pressurizer power-operated relief valves (PORVs). This was

6 corrected during a subsequent outage.

7

8 A comparison of internal events risk profiles between the IPE and the PSA used in the SAMA

analysis indicates a decrease of approximately 3.7 x 10-5 9 per year in the total CDF (about a

10 factor of two). The reduction is attributed to plant and modeling improvements that have been

11 implemented at Ginna since the IPE was submitted. A summary listing of those changes that

12 resulted in the greatest impact on the total CDF was provided in response to an RAI

13 (RG&E 2003b), and include:

14

15  Relocated the service water (SW) piping that ran through the two battery rooms. This

16 change eliminates the potential loss of both battery rooms due to failure to isolate SW

17 line breaks in this area, which was the largest contributing CDF sequence.

18

19  Modified procedures to avoid situations in which both trains of standby auxiliary

20 feedwater (SAFW) could be taken out of service at the same time, thereby improving

21 the ability to provide steam generator cooling in the event of a high-energy line break in

22 the intermediate or turbine building.

23

24  Revised the “Alternate Shutdown for Control Complex Fire” procedure to also apply to

25 relay room floods. Previously, the procedure only addressed fire.

26

27  Developed a new procedure to instruct plant personnel to manually close the Bus 18

28 breakers to prevent a SBO condition in the event of a worst-case fire.

29

30  Updated generic data sources for initiating events, including the use of WCAP-15210

31 (WEC 1999) and NUREG/CR-5750 (NRC 1999b).

32

33  Added plant-specific data for component failure rates, test and maintenance

34 unavailabilities, and initiating event frequencies, and refined the Bayesian updating

35 process.

36

37  Increased frequencies for loss of offsite power to include all severe weather events, and

38 included ISLOCAs whose frequencies previously fell below the threshold level for

39 detailed analyses.

40
Appendix G

June 2003 G-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  Updated the human reliability analysis to provide detailed evaluations of more events in

2 lieu of screening values.

3

4  Removed conservatism for common cause failures that can induce initiators such as

5 loss of service water, component cooling water, and instrument/service air.

6

7  Added fires, internal floods, and shutdown risk models to the fault trees to enable their

8 solution and risk ranking. Removed loss of spent fuel pool cooling and fuel-handling

9 accidents and analyzed separately, because they do not lead to core damage.

10

11 The modeling changes from the IPE version to the current PSA are significant. Some

12 contributors such as transients (previously a 25 percent contribution to internal events CDF)

13 were significantly reduced. For example, the use of updated event frequencies significantly

14 decreased the CDF from large LOCA, and plant changes such as a modification to the service

15 water piping in battery rooms eliminated the largest contributor to CDF. Given the magnitude of

16 the plant and model changes, the overall reduction in CDF appears to be reasonable.

17

18 The IPE CDF value for Ginna is comparable to most of the original IPE values estimated for

19 other pressurized water reactors (PWRs) with a large dry containment. Figure 11.6 of

20 NUREG-1560 shows that the IPE-based total internal events CDF for two-loop Westinghouse

plants ranges from 5 x 10-5 to 1.2 x 10-4 21 per reactor-year (NRC 1997a). The internal events

CDF based on the latest PSA (approximately 1.3 x 10-5 22 per year for events at power) is lower

23 than the IPE values for other two-loop plants. However, it is recognized that other plants in

24 addition to Ginna have reduced the values for CDF subsequent to the IPE submittals through

25 modeling and hardware changes.

26

27 The staff considered the peer review performed for the Ginna PSA, and the potential impact of

28 the peer review findings on the SAMA evaluation. In response to an RAI (RG&E 2003b), RG&E

29 described the recent peer review of the Ginna PSA model. In preparation for a Westinghouse

30 Owners Group peer review, an assessment of the Ginna PSA was performed by RG&E, the

31 findings of which resulted in Revision 4.1. Revision 4.1 of the PSA model was reviewed by the

32 Westinghouse Owners Group in May 2002. As a result of the peer review, RG&E updated the

33 PSA to correct the most significant findings and observations. The updated model is referred to

34 as Revision 4.2. According to RG&E, a few of the peer review comments were not incorporated

35 into the current version of the PSA; however, those comments were evaluated and judged to

36 have minimal impact of the plant CDF and no impact on the SAMA analysis (RG&E 2003c). 

37 Two high-level peer review items that were not addressed in the PSA but that could impact the

38 SAMA analysis relate to the use of fission product scrubbing factors in the determination of

39 source terms for bypass events. RG&E explicitly addressed these comments in the SAMA

40 analysis by removing credit for scrubbing.
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-8 June 2003

1 Ginna has two reactor coolant pumps (RCPs), each equipped with qualified high-temperature

2 O-rings. The staff questioned RG&E regarding the model used to evaluate RCP seal LOCAs

3 during loss-of-seal cooling events (NRC 2002a, 2003). The model used in Revision 4.2 is a

4 composite based on (1) the original Westinghouse RCP Seal LOCA model developed in

5 WCAP-10541 (WEC 1986), (2) the RCP Seal LOCA model employed by the NRC in NUREG6 1150 (NRC 1990), (3) the Rhodes-based Brookhaven National Laboratory model, and (4) the

7 most recent Westinghouse RCP Seal LOCA model described in WCAP-15603 (RG&E 2003c). 

8 RG&E noted that if the Rhodes model was used, the CDF would be higher by less

9 than1 percent (RG&E 2003c). Based on RG&E's response, which supports use of the current

10 model, the staff concludes that no new SAMA candidates would have evolved from application

11 of the Rhodes model.

12

13 RG&E submitted an IPEEE in January 1997 (RG&E 1997c) in response to Supplement 4 of

14 Generic Letter 88-20. This was followed by a submittal that included the fire analysis

15 (RG&E 1998a). RG&E did not identify any vulnerabilities to severe accident risk in regard to

16 the external events related to seismic, fire, or other external events. The Ginna hurricane,

17 tornado, and high winds analyses show that the plant is adequately designed or procedures

18 exist to cope with the effects of these natural events. Additionally, the Ginna IPEEE

19 demonstrated that transportation and nearby facility accidents were not considered to be

20 significant vulnerabilities at the plant. However, a number of areas were identified for

21 improvement in both the seismic and fire areas as discussed below. In a letter dated December

22 21, 2000, the staff concluded that the submittal met the intent of Supplement 4 to Generic

23 Letter 88-20, and that the licensee’s IPEEE process is capable of identifying the most likely

24 severe accidents and severe accident vulnerabilities (NRC 2000). A strength noted in the

25 IPEEE submittal was that Ginna is an Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) plant and was

26 subjected to a detailed review for SEP, much of which is applicable to IPEEE.

27

28 The Ginna IPEEE does not provide the means to determine the numerical estimates of the CDF

29 contributions from seismic initiators. The seismic portion of the IPEEE consisted of a reduced30 scope seismic evaluation using the methodology for Seismic Margins Assessment, described in

31 Electric Power Research Institute NP-6041 (EPRI 1988). Since initial plant licensing, Ginna has

32 undergone a number of programs addressing seismic design issues, one of which was the

33 SEP. Under this and other programs, RG&E conducted extensive reevaluations of, and made

34 upgrades to, structures, systems, and equipment at Ginna, using a 0.2g Regulatory Guide 1.60

35 spectrum as seismic input (NRC 1973). These efforts have extended seismic capacity of Ginna

36 beyond the original seismic design basis.

37
Appendix G

June 2003 G-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 During the IPEEE seismic analysis, RG&E identified five vulnerabilities: 

2

3  The house heating boiler, which is located near the service water pumps in the

4 screenhouse, was not anchored. It could shift and damage the attached natural gas

5 line.

6

7  There are several locations where block wall failures could result in the release of

8 combustibles: an oxygen line in the auxiliary building, a hydrogen line and valve station

9 in the intermediate building, and hydrogen cylinders in the turbine building.

10

11  There are two fire suppression systems that could be actuated by block wall failures:

12 (1) the manual deluge system in the relay room and (2) both a manual deluge system

13 and a pre-action sprinkler system on elevation 253 in the intermediate building.

14

15  Block walls are used as fire barriers throughout the plant. The walls whose failure could

16 impact the fire protection of safety-related equipment are those separating the service

17 building from the intermediate building (column line 3), and those separating the turbine

18 building from intermediate building (column line F).

19

20  The two reactor coolant pump oil collecting tanks in the containment basement were not

21 reviewed during the seismic walkdown because the containment was inaccessible.

22

23 These issues were later resolved as a part of the Ginna’s IPEEE Fire Analysis by either design

24 evaluations or design changes (RG&E 1998a).

25

26 Additionally, seismic issues were identified for 52 items of equipment (NRC 2002b). Fourteen

27 of these were resolved as part of the closeout of unresolved safety issue (USI) A-46 (NRC

28 1987). In response to an RAI, RG&E indicated that the remaining 38 items have been resolved,

29 and outlined the resolution of all 38 items, a majority of which were resolved by plant

30 modification (RG&E 2003c). Typical modifications included installation of restraints, hangers,

31 anchorages, and modifications of anchorages.

32

33 RG&E noted that one item still remains open: seismically induced flooding resulting from the

34 failure of the Reactor Makeup Water Tank (RMWT) and the Monitor Tank (RG&E 2003a). In

35 response to a staff inquiry regarding why this vulnerability was not addressed in the SAMA

36 analysis, RG&E indicated that a modification to address this contributor is planned for

37 implementation in 2005 (NRC 2003). Various design options are being evaluated, including

38 installation of leak-tight, removable curb around the RHR sub-basement entrance to a level that

39 would neither pose a flooding danger to the safety injection pumps nor allow the RMWT and

40 Monitor Tank contents to enter the sub-basement (RG&E 2003c). This item has been entered
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-10 June 2003

1 into the Plant Change Request (PCR) system and is being tracked in the Commitment and

2 Action Tracking System as item 10602 (RG&E 2003a).

3

4 The Ginna IPEEE fire assessment used a PSA approach to systematically and successively

5 evaluate fire hazards and their associated risks. The analysis was performed in three phases.

6 The first two phases, consisting of qualitative and quantitative screening steps, used methods

7 that are consistent with the Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation methodology, which was

8 approved for use in NUREG-1407 for screening. The third phase was a detailed fire PSA,

9 which was performed for fire areas and fire zones that were not screened. A quantification for

fire events in the IPEEE indicated that the contribution to plant CDF from fire was about 3 x 10-5 10

11 per year.

12

13 Based on the analysis, RG&E concluded that there were no fire-induced vulnerabilities. 

14 However, several plant and procedural modifications were identified as a result of the analysis. 

15 The following modification was implemented and was credited in the analysis:

16

17  Fuses will be installed on control circuits routed in the screen house associated with the

18 functioning of 4160 VAC circuit breakers. The fuses will be designed to open if

19 grounding occurs during a fire, thus permitting the protective function of the circuit

20 breakers to remain intact.

21

22 Several other modifications were identified by the licensee at the time of the IPEEE submittal,

23 specifically:

24

25  an operating procedure enhancement for performing local recovery of the pressurizer

26 heaters if control of the heaters is lost from the control room (the pressurizer heaters are

27 one means of providing long-term reactor coolant system [RCS] circulation)

28

29  insertion of a warning in the alternate shutdown procedure ER-FIRE-1 to indicate that, in

30 the event of a spurious opening of motor-operated valve (MOV) 857B (which fails RHR

31 shutdown cooling), this valve can be closed locally

32

33  installation of additional sealed containers for transient combustibles storage in the

34 auxiliary building basement

35

36  spurious opening of MOVs 850A and 850B due to hot shorts can lead to draining of the

37 refueling water storage tank (RWST) volume into the containment sump

38

39  installation of a local pressure gauge to permit RWST level measurement in the event of

40 fire-induced damage to level instrumentation.
Appendix G

June 2003 G-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 In response to NRC questions on the IPEEE submittal, RG&E performed a detailed update of

2 the fire risk study that included explicitly modeling operator actions and fire suppression

3 systems. As a result, the above modifications were no longer risk significant and were

4 dismissed. The results of the update were documented in RG&E’s response to an RAI

5 (RG&E 1999). The staff reviewed the response and concluded that the licensee’s submittals

6 met the intent of the IPEEE process.

7

8 Since the time of the IPEEE, further changes to the fire and internal flood analyses have been

9 made. In response to an RAI, RG&E delineated the significant changes made to these

10 analyses since the submission of the IPEEE. The changes include:

11

12  The installed fire suppression systems have been explicitly modeled in the fault trees.

13

14  Several human error events have been added, and a few were deleted to reflect more

15 detailed modeling of specific fire events.

16

17  The model has been revised to reflect a December 2000 plant modification to the

18 service water piping in battery rooms, which eliminated the largest contributing CDF

19 sequence.

20

21  Several human error events for floods have been subjected to detailed human error

22 analysis to yield more accurate values for their probabilities.

23

24  Several flooding initiator frequencies have been revised as well as some new ones

25 added to model certain zone-specific floods in greater detail.

26

27 Based on the current PSA, the contribution to the total CDF from fires is comparable to the CDF

contribution from internal events (approximately 1 x 10-5 28 per year). As such, in an RAI the staff

29 inquired whether specific SAMAs were considered that might reduce the risk due to fire

30 (NRC 2002a). In response, RG&E stated that six of the eight candidate SAMAs (SAMA

31 numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7) address elements of internal fire (RG&E 2003a).

32

33 Because RG&E included contributions from fire and floods in its base case evaluation, and due

34 to the extensive efforts made during the IPEEE and SQUG processes to address seismic

35 issues, the staff finds RG&E’s consideration of external events to be acceptable. 

36

37 Given that RG&E incorporated all relevant and significant comments from the Westinghouse

38 Owners Group peer review and revised the SAMA analysis accordingly, that RG&E

39 satisfactorily addressed staff questions regarding the PSA (RG&E 2003a, 2003b, 2003c), and

40 that the CDF falls within the range of contemporary CDFs for Westinghouse plants with large
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-12 June 2003

1 dry containments, the staff concludes that the Level 1 and 2 PSA is of sufficient quality to

2 support the SAMA evaluation.

3

4 The staff reviewed the process used by RG&E to extend the containment performance (Level 2)

5 portion of the PSA to an assessment of offsite consequences (essentially a Level 3 PSA). This

6 process included consideration of the source terms used to characterize fission product

7 releases for the applicable containment release category and the major input assumptions used

8 in the offsite consequence analyses. The MACCS2 code was used to estimate offsite

9 consequences. Plant-specific input to the code includes the Ginna reactor core radionuclide

10 inventory, emergency evacuation modeling, release category source terms, site-specific

11 meteorological data, and projected population distribution within a 80-km (50-mi) radius for the

12 year 2030. This information is provided in Appendix E of the Ginna ER (RG&E 2002). 

13

14 RG&E used source term release fractions for 11 different release classes defined for Ginna. 

15 Tables 3 and 4 of the RAI responses provide a breakout of the source terms by release

16 category (RG&E 2003b). The frequencies of the various release classes are based on an

17 updated version of the IPE, developed consistent with the methodology described in

18 NUREG/CR-6595. In the updated analysis, the 25 STCs used in the IPE were rebinned into 11

19 release category bins, each of which was assigned a representative source term based on the

20 original MAAP analyses performed for the IPE. The binning and assignment of source terms

21 appears to have been performed in a consistent manner; that is, the release category bins

22 generally contain STCs with similar release characteristics and timing and are assigned a

23 source term consistent with these characteristics. A sensitivity study was performed for a

24 10 percent increase in the quantity of fission products released. (The core inventory was

25 increased by 10 percent while maintaining the release fractions.) This resulted in a 7 percent

26 increase in the population dose. RG&E used the 10 percent larger source term as input into

27 MACCS2 for the base case. The staff concludes that the assignment of source terms is

28 acceptable for use in the SAMA analysis.

29

30 The applicant used site-specific meteorological data processed from hourly measurements as

31 input to the MACCS2 code. Annual data from 1992 through 1994 were input into the MACCS2

32 code for the base case. The results showed that the total dose and cost results for the most

33 severe release category (ISLOCA) are within 12 percent of the average. The data from 1992

34 yielded results above the average for all release cases and, therefore, was selected and used

35 as the input. Where data blocks were missing in the source files, supplementary information

36 was derived from meteorological data obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

37 Administration from the Greater Rochester International Airport, approximately 24 km (15 mi)

38 west of Ginna. The staff notes that previous SAMA analyses results have shown little sensitivity

39 to year-to-year differences in meteorological data and considers use of the 1992 data in the

40 base case to be reasonable.
Appendix G

June 2003 G-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 The population distribution the applicant used as input to the MACCS2 analysis was estimated

2 for the year 2030, based on the NRC geographic information system for 1990 (NRC 1997c),

3 and the population growth rates were based on the 2000 county-level census data. A sensitivity

4 study was performed by increasing the projected population for 2030 by 10 percent. This

5 resulted in a greater than 20 percent increase for both offsite dose and economic costs. Due to

6 this significant increase, RG&E used the 2030 population plus 10 percent in the base case

7 analysis. The staff considers the methods and assumptions for estimating population

8 reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

9

10 The emergency evacuation model was modeled as a single evacuation zone extending 16 km

11 (10 mi) from the plant. It was assumed that 95 percent of the population would move at an

12 average speed of approximately 1.8 meters per second (6.0 ft per second) with a delayed start

13 time of 2 hrs (7200 s). This assumption is conservative relative to the NUREG-1150 study

14 (NRC 1990), which assumed evacuation of 99.5 percent of the population within the emergency

15 planning zone. The evacuation assumptions and analysis are deemed reasonable and

16 acceptable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

17

18 Much of the site-specific economic data were provided by specifying the data for each of the

19 13 counties surrounding the plant, to a distance of 50 miles. The SECPOP90 site input file was

20 manually updated to the 2000 timeframe (NRC 1997c). The agricultural economic data were

21 updated using available data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture supplemented by other data

22 available through other federal agencies (USDA 1999). These included per value of farm and

23 non-farm wealth, and fraction of farm wealth from improvements (e.g., buildings).

24

25 The staff concludes that the methodology used by RG&E to estimate the offsite consequences

26 for Ginna, which includes the frequency-weighted contribution from all release categories,

27 provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an assessment of risk reduction

28 potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite risk on

29 the CDF and offsite doses reported by RG&E.

30

31 G.3 Potential Plant Improvements

32

33 The process for identifying potential plant improvements, an evaluation of that process, and the

34 improvements evaluated in detail by RG&E are discussed in this section.

35

36 G.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements

37

38 In the Ginna ER (RG&E 2003b), only eight candidate SAMAs were identified. However, a much

39 broader set of SAMAs was considered by RG&E to arrive at these eight SAMAs. RG&E
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-14 June 2003

1 elaborated on its process for identifying potential SAMAs in response to RAIs (RG&E 2003a,

2 2003b, 2003c). The process consisted of the following elements:

3

4  review of SAMA analyses performed for other operating plants that have submitted

5 license renewal applications, particularly Fort Calhoun Station

6

7  review of other NRC and industry documentation discussing potential plant

8 improvements (e.g., NUREG-1560) (NRC 1997a)

9

10  review of potential improvements identified in the plant-specific risk analyses (IPE,

11 IPEEE, and subsequent PSA revisions)

12

13  a review of the Fussel-Vesely (F-V) and risk achievement worth (RAW) importance

14 measures, and the dominant CDF and LERF cut sets for Revision 4.2

15

16  insights provided by RG&E plant staff.

17

18 Based on this process, 192 candidate SAMAs considered by previous applicants, plus several

19 plant-specific SAMAs based on the Ginna PSA were identified (RG&E 2003c). RG&E

20 performed a qualitative screening of the initial list of SAMAs and eliminated SAMAs from further

21 consideration using the following criteria:

22

23  The SAMA modifies features not applicable to Ginna.

24

25  The SAMA would involve major plant design and/or structural changes that would clearly

26 be well in excess (greater than two times) of the maximum attainable benefit (MAB).

27

28  The SAMA would provide only minimal risk reduction based on review of F-V and RAW.

29

30 This qualitative screening process reduced the list to approximately 20 candidate SAMAs

31 (RG&E 2003c). These SAMAs were further defined and then reviewed based on the following

32 considerations:

33

34  ability to implement the change at Ginna (i.e., are there any design challenges or

35 physical limitations)

36

37  the risk reduction that would realistically be achieved

38

39  whether implementation of the change would increase vulnerabilities in other areas.

40
Appendix G

June 2003 G-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 This culminated in eight plant-specific candidate SAMAs. These eight SAMAs were further

2 evaluated, and two SAMAs were found to be potentially cost beneficial, as described below in

3 Sections G.4 and G.6. RG&E considered the impact of uncertainties on the results of the

4 SAMA analysis (RG&E 2003a). No additional SAMAs were judged to be cost beneficial

5 (RG&E 2003b).

6

7 G.3.2 Review of RG&E’s Process

8

9 The preliminary review of the Ginna ER raised concerns regarding the process used to identify

10 potential SAMAs, and the completeness of the set of SAMAs considered. This was

11 satisfactorily resolved though the additional information provided by the applicant, as described

12 above. The staff also requested information regarding whether an importance analysis was

13 used to confirm the adequacy of the SAMA identification process, and the portion of risk

14 represented by the dominant risk contributors. In response to the RAI, RG&E provided a

15 tabular listing of the contributors with the greatest potential for reducing risk as demonstrated by

16 F-V and RAW assigned to the event. This approach inherently considers the top 95 percent of

17 the CDF and LERF cut sets. RG&E also reviewed the dominant 50 CDF and LERF cut sets,

18 which accounts for the top 45 percent of the CDF cut sets and 75 percent of the LERF cut sets

19 (RG&E 2003b). Based on this, the staff concludes that RG&E’s efforts to identify potential

20 SAMAs included consideration of areas that presented the greatest potential for reducing risk. 

21 The list of eight SAMAs generally addressed the accident categories that are dominant CDF

22 contributors or issues that tend to have a large impact on a number of accident sequences at

23 Ginna.

24

25 In the original ER submittal, the estimated MAB was $992,000 (RG&E 2002). During the

26 screening process, SAMAs whose cost exceeded two times the MAB were removed from

27 further consideration. The SAMA analysis was subsequently revised to address peer review

28 comments, and that portion of the ER was resubmitted. As a result, the MAB increased to

29 $1.93 million. RG&E concluded that the increase in MAB did not result in the identification of

30 any additional SAMAs. The staff agrees with this conclusion because the initial screening

31 removed SAMAs that are estimated to cost $2 million or more.

32

33 The staff questioned RG&E whether it considered some of the cost beneficial SAMAs identified

34 at previous plants, specifically, the use of a portable generator to power steam generator level

35 instrumentation, and improvements to the reactor protection system logic to reduce the

36 likelihood of failure of two 125 VAC instrument buses causing the spurious opening of the

37 PORVs (NRC 2003). In a telephone conversation, RG&E stated that such vulnerabilities did not

38 exist at Ginna due to design differences, or that sufficient battery capacity existed. Ginna is a

39 4-hour coping plant but has 8-hour capacity batteries (NRC 2003). Based on a review of the

40 response, the staff agrees with this conclusion.
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-16 June 2003

1 The staff notes that the set of SAMAs submitted is not all inclusive, since additional, possibly

2 even less expensive, design alternatives can always be postulated. However, the staff

3 concludes that the benefits of any additional modifications are unlikely to exceed the benefits of

4 the modifications evaluated and that the alternative improvements would not likely cost less

5 than the least expensive alternatives evaluated, when the subsidiary costs associated with

6 maintenance, procedures, and training are considered. 

7

8 The staff concludes that RG&E used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying

9 potential plant improvements for Ginna, and that the set of potential plant improvements

10 identified by RG&E is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, is acceptable. This search

11 included reviewing insights from the IPE, IPEEE, and other plant-specific studies; reviewing

12 plant improvements in previous SAMA analyses; and using the knowledge and experience of its

13 PRA personnel.

14

15 G.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements

16

17 RG&E estimated the risk-reduction potential of the eight remaining SAMA candidates that were

18 applicable to Ginna. RG&E used model requantification to determine the potential benefits. 

19 The CDF and LERF reductions were estimated using the current version of the Ginna PSA

20 (Revision 4.2). The changes made to the PSA model to quantify the impact of each SAMA are

21 detailed in Section E.3 of Appendix E to the Ginna ER (RG&E 2003b). Table G-3 provides a

22 summary of the assumptions used to estimate the risk reduction, the risk reduction in terms of

23 percent reduction in CDF and population dose, the total benefit (present value) of the averted

24 risk, and the estimated implementation cost for each of the eight SAMAs. The determination of

25 the benefits for the various SAMAs is discussed in Section G.6.

26

27 In response to an RAI, RG&E considered the uncertainties associated with the calculated CDF. 

28 This matter is discussed further in Section G.6.2.

29

30 The staff has reviewed the bases used by RG&E for calculating the risk reduction for the

31 various plant improvements, and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating

32 risk reduction are reasonable and generally conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is

33 higher than what would actually be realized). Accordingly, the staff based its estimates of

34 averted risk for the various SAMAs on risk reduction estimates provided by RG&E. 

35

36 G.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements

37

38 RG&E estimated the costs of implementing the eight candidate SAMAs through the application

39 of engineering judgment and site-specific cost estimates. The cost estimates (presented in

40 Section E.3 of Appendix E to the Ginna ER) conservatively did not include the cost of
Appendix G

June 2003 G-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table G-3. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis

2

3 SAMA Assumptions

Percent Risk

Reduction Total

Benefit

($)

Estimated

Cost

CDF ($)

Population

Dose

4 1. Obtain a skid-mounted,

5 480-V diesel generator

6 that could be directly

7 connected to one train of the

8 safeguards buses in the

9 event of a failure of the two

existing diesel generators.(a) 10

The addition of a skid-mounted,

480-V diesel generator with the

same failure rate as the existing

diesel generators and a

0.01 operator failure probability to

start and align the diesel

generator can supply the

safeguards bus to reduce SBO

and induced SBO sequences.

24.8 43.5 944,000 400,000

11 2. Obtain a third fire water

12 source that is independent of

13 the existing suction source

14 for the motor- and diesel15 driven fire pumps to be used

16 in the event of a total loss of

17 the screen house due to a

18 fire or flood or loss of all

19 service water suction due to

20 environmental causes.

The addition of a diesel-driven

pump of comparable size to the

existing motor- and diesel-driven

fire pumps can be connected to

the existing fire system water

piping and used for fire suppression or as a source of suction to

the AFW pumps. The failure rate

of the new pump is assumed to

be the same as the existing

diesel-driven fire pump. A failure

rate of 0.1 is assumed for the

operator action to connect the

pump to the AFW system and

0.01 for the operator action to

align the pump to supply the fire

system during fire events.

1.8 3.3 70,000 200,000

21 3. Add a standby charging

22 pump powered from a

23 protected AC source and

24 located in the intermediate or

25 turbine building or SAFW

26 pump building.

Conditions where charging pump

A is out of service or directly

failed, large floods that disable all

three charging pumps and a

charging pump room fire can be

mitigated by an additional

charging pump that autostarts on

low flow or pressure. This pump

is assumed to be powered from

Bus 14.

11.2 2.5 107,000 1,100,000
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-18 June 2003

1 Table G-3. (contd)

2

3 SAMA Assumptions

Percent Risk

Reduction Total

Benefit

($)

Estimated

Cost

CDF ($)

Population

Dose

4 4. Modify procedures to allow

5 charging pump B or C to be

6 manually aligned to Bus 14. 

7 This alignment could be

8 used to mitigate fires

9 requiring entry into

10 procedure “Alternative

11 Shutdown for Control

12 Complex Fire” or fires

13 disabling train B, where the A

14 charging pump is out of

service or fails to run.(a) 15

Manually aligning the B or C

pump to Bus 14 can reduce all

cut sets in which charging pump

A is out of service or failed

directly. A failure rate of 8.21 x

10-3 is used for aligning and

starting the pump.

9.1 1.7 83,000 20,000

16 5. Add redundant check valves

17 in the two RHR injection lines

18 to the RCS to prevent a

19 LOCA in the auxiliary

20 building which could not be

21 isolated.

The ISLOCA frequency is

reduced reflecting the new

configuration where failure of the

additional check valve, the

current check valve and the MOV,

or both check valves and an

inadvertent opening of the MOV,

or a spurious safety injection

signal would result in an ISLOCA. 

This was applied to the two lines

through Penetration 111. It was

also assumed that for this

penetration LERF is a third of

CDF because a third of the

Penetration 111 piping that would

be exposed to RCS pressure is

inside containment.

0.2 7.7 45,000 1,000,000

22 6. Modify motor-driven AFW

23 pump cooling system to be

24 independent of service water

25 (SW).

All cut sets that involve a loss of

all AFW due to a failure of the

SW suction source or a global

failure of the screen house

equipment due to fire or flooding

will no longer lead to core

damage due to the availability of

the motor-driven pumps.

1.8 < 1 13,000 200,000

26
Appendix G

June 2003 G-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Table G-3. (contd)

2

3 SAMA Assumptions

Percent Risk

Reduction Total

Benefit

($)

Estimated

Cost

CDF ($)

Population

Dose

4 7. Modify air-operated valve

5 (AOV) 112C to fail close and

6 AOV 112B to fail open on

7 loss of instrument air. This

8 change would allow the

9 RWST to become the

10 suction source for charging

11 instead of the volume control

12 tank (VCT).

All cut sets that contain the

operator action to switch over the

charging suction source from the

VCT to the RWST can be

reduced by setting this action to

false (success).

2.0 < 1 14,000 50,000

13 8. Reconfigure the PORV so

14 they transfer automatically

15 from instrument air to N2 on

16 low pressure and convert N2

17 supply line AOV to DC

18 powered MOV.

The nitrogen system is available

to support the power-operated

relief valves with a failure

probability of 4.76 x 10-3 (the

failure rate of the components in

the nitrogen system). Nitrogen

support system failures were not

included. This is conservative in

that including these failures would

increase the failure probability of

the nitrogen system.

1.6 < 1 24,000 400,000

19 (a) SAMAs judged to be cost beneficial.

20

21 replacement power during extended outages required to implement the modifications, nor did

22 they include recurring maintenance and surveillance costs or contingency costs associated with

23 unforeseen implementation obstacles. Cost estimates typically included procedures, training,

24 and documentation, in addition to any hardware.

25

26 The staff reviewed the bases for the applicant’s cost estimates. For certain improvements, the

27 staff also compared the cost estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar improve28 ments, including estimates developed as part of other licensees’ analyses of SAMAs for

29 operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors. Six of the eight SAMAs were screened

30 from further consideration on the basis that the expected implementation cost would be much

31 greater than the estimated risk reduction benefit. This is reasonable for these six SAMAs given

32 the relatively small estimated benefit (a maximum benefit of about $107,000 among the six

33 SAMAs), and the sizeable costs typically associated with hardware modifications. It is noted

34 that one SAMA (SAMA 7) involves a minimal hardware modification to two valve operators. 

35 However, the estimated benefit for this SAMA ($14,000) is small in comparison to the

36 implementation costs ($50,000), and the actual costs are likely to be higher when all cost

37 factors are included. The staff concludes that the cost estimates are sufficient and appropriate

38 for use in the SAMA evaluation.

39
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-20 June 2003

1 G.6 Cost/Benefit Comparison

2

3 RG&E's cost/benefit analysis and the staff’s review are described in the following sections.

4

5 G.6.1 RG&E Evaluation

6

7 The methodology used by RG&E was based primarily on NRC’s guidance for performing

8 cost/benefit analysis (NRC 1997d). The guidance involves determining the net value for each

9 SAMA according to the following formula:

10

11 Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) - COE

12

13 where,

14

15 APE = present value of averted public exposure ($)

16 AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($)

17 AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure costs ($)

18 AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($)

19 COE = cost of enhancement ($).

20

21 If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the

22 benefit associated with the SAMA, and it is not considered cost beneficial. RG&E’s derivation

23 of each of the associated costs is summarized below.

24

25 Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

26

27 The APE costs were calculated using the following formula:

28

29 APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (∆person-rem/reactor-year)

30 x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem)

31 x present value conversion factor (10.76 based on a 20-year period with a

32 7 percent discount rate).

33

34 As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997d), it is important to note that the monetary value of

35 the public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public

36 health risk due to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential

37 losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility. 

38 Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss due to a single accident, the possibility that such an

39 accident could occur at any time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these

40 potential future losses to present value. For the purposes of initial screening, RG&E calculated
Appendix G

June 2003 G-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 an APE of approximately $350,000 for the 20-year license renewal period, which assumes

2 elimination of all severe accidents. 

3

4 Averted Offsite Property Damage Costs (AOC)

5

6 The AOCs were calculated using the following formula:

7

8 AOC = Annual CDF reduction

9 x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per-event basis)

10 x present value conversion factor.

11

12 For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, RG&E 

13 calculated an annual offsite economic risk of about $87,000 based on the Level 3 risk analysis. 

14 This results in a discounted value of approximately $932,000 for the 20-year license renewal

15 period.

16

17 Averted Occupational Exposure (AOE) Costs

18

19 The AOE costs were calculated using the following formula:

20

21 AOE = Annual CDF reduction

22 x occupational exposure per core damage event

23 x monetary equivalent of unit dose

24 x present value conversion factor.

25

26 RG&E derived the values for averted occupational exposure from information provided in

27 Section 5.7.3 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997d). Best estimate values provided

28 for immediate occupational dose (3300 person-rem) and long-term occupational dose

29 (20,000 person-rem over a 10-year cleanup period) were used. The present value of these

30 doses was calculated using the equations provided in the handbook in conjunction with a

31 monetary equivalent of unit dose of $2000 per person-rem, a real discount rate of 7 percent,

32 and a time period of 20 years to represent the license renewal period. For the purposes of

33 initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, RG&E calculated an AOE

34 of approximately $15,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

35

36
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-22 June 2003

1 Averted Onsite Costs (AOSC)

2

3 Averted onsite costs (AOSC) include averted cleanup and decontamination costs and averted

4 power replacement costs. Repair and refurbishment costs are considered for recoverable

5 accidents only and not for severe accidents. RG&E derived the values for AOSC based on

6 information provided in Section 5.7.6 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997d).

7

8 RG&E divided this cost element into two parts: (1) the onsite cleanup and decontamination

9 Cost, also commonly referred to as averted cleanup and decontamination costs, and (2) the

10 replacement power cost.

11

12 Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACC) were calculated using the following formula:

13

14 ACC = Annual CDF reduction

15 x present value of cleanup costs per core damage event

16 x present value conversion factor.

17

18 The total cost of cleanup and decontamination subsequent to a severe accident is estimated in

the regulatory analysis handbook to be $1.5 x 109 19 (undiscounted). This value was converted to

20 present costs over a 10-year cleanup period and integrated over the term of the proposed

21 license extension. 

22

23 Long-term replacement power costs (RPC) were calculated using the following formula: 

24

25 RPC = Annual CDF reduction

26 x present value of replacement power for a single event

27 x factor to account for remaining service years for which replacement power is

28 required

29 x reactor power scaling factor

30

31 RG&E based its calculations on the value of 490 MWe, and scaled down from the 910 MWe

32 reference plant in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997d). Therefore, RG&E applied a power scaling

33 factor of 490 MWe/910 MWe to determine the replacement power costs. For the purposes of

34 initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, RG&E calculated an RPC

35 of approximately $169,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

36

37 For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, RG&E

38 calculated an AOSC of approximately $631,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

39
Appendix G

June 2003 G-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Using the above equations, RG&E estimated the total present dollar value equivalent

2 associated with completely eliminating severe accidents at Ginna to be about $1.93 million.

3

4 RG&E’s Results

5

6 If the implementation costs were greater than the MAB, then the SAMA was screened from

7 further consideration. A more refined look at the costs and benefits was performed for the

8 remaining SAMAs. If the expected cost for those SAMAs exceeded the calculated benefit, the

9 SAMA was considered not to be cost beneficial. The cost/benefit results for the individual

10 analysis of the eight SAMA candidates are presented in Table G-3. As a result, two of the

11 eight SAMAs were considered to be potentially cost beneficial:

12

13  SAMA 1: Obtain a skid-mounted, 480-V diesel generator that could be directly

14 connected to one train of the safeguards buses in the event of a failure of the

15 two existing diesel generators.

16

17  SAMA 4: Modify procedures to allow charging pump B or C to be manually aligned to

18 Bus 14. This alignment could be used to mitigate fires requiring entry into

19 procedure “Alternative Shutdown for Control Complex Fire” or fires disabling

20 train B, where the A charging pump is out of service or fails to run.

21

22 RG&E performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices on the

23 analysis results (RG&E 2002, 2003a, 2003b). As discussed in Section 5.2.2.2, sensitivity cases

24 that assumed a 10 percent increase in the projected population and a 10 percent increase in 

25 fission product releases were adopted in the baseline analysis. In addition, RG&E considered

26 the impact on SAMA results if (1) a 3 percent discount rate (rather than 7 percent in the base

case) as recommended in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997d) was used, and (2) if the 95th 27

28 percentile values of the CDF were utilized in the cost/benefit analysis instead of the mean CDF. 

29 These analyses did not result in a positive net benefit for any additional SAMAs.

30

31 RG&E stated in the Ginna ER that the two potentially cost beneficial SAMAs identified above do

32 not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging, and therefore, are not required to be

33 implemented pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54 (RG&E 2003b). However, RG&E stated that it will

34 consider implementation of these SAMAs through its current plant change process.

35

36 G.6.2 Review of RG&E’s Cost/Benefit Evaluation

37

38 The cost/benefit analysis performed by RG&E was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184

39 (NRC 1997d) and was executed consistent with this guidance. 

40
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-24 June 2003

1 In response to an RAI, RG&E considered the uncertainties associated with the calculated CDF

(Table G-4). If the 95th 2 percentile values of the CDF were used in the cost/benefit analysis

3 instead of the mean CDF value used in the baseline analysis, the estimated benefits of the

4 SAMAs would increase by about a factor of two. Increasing the benefit by this factor would

5 have no impact on the conclusion of the SAMA evaluation; that is, even if the non-viable

6 SAMAs (those qualitatively screened out) were increased by a factor of two, the resulting cost

7 benefit would remain negative (RG&E 2003b).

8

9 Table G-4. Uncertainty in the Calculated Core Damage Frequency

10 for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

11

12 Percentile CDF (per year)

5th 13 2.05 x 10-5

50th 14 3.52 x 10-5

15 mean 4.00 x 10-5

95th 16 9.00 x 10-5

17

18 In addition, RG&E performed sensitivity analyses that addressed assumptions made in other

19 parts of the cost/benefit analysis, including variations in discount rate, weather, population, and

20 source terms. These were either adopted in the base case (e.g., population and source terms)

21 or are bounded by the CDF uncertainty assessment. 

22

23 The staff concludes that, with the exception of the two cost beneficial SAMAs, the costs of the

24 SAMAs would be higher than the associated benefits. This conclusion is supported by

25 uncertainty assessment and sensitivity analysis and upheld despite a number of additional

26 uncertainties and non-quantifiable factors in the calculations, summarized as follows:

27

28  Uncertainty in the internal events CDF was not initially included in the calculations,

29 which employed mean values to determine the benefits. The 95th percent confidence

30 level for internal events CDF is approximately 2.25 times the best estimate CDF. Even

upon considering the benefits at the 95th 31 percentile value, no SAMAs were judged to be

32 cost beneficial. Therefore, consideration of CDF uncertainty is not expected to alter the

33 conclusions of the analysis.

34

35  Seismic events were not included in the Ginna risk profile. However, seismic vulner36 abilities were addressed during the IPEEE and SQUG evaluations. Fire and flood

37 events have been included within the scope of the SAMA evaluation. An increase in the

38 benefits by a factor of two had no impact on the results of the evaluation. 

39
Appendix G

June 2003 G-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1  Risk reduction and cost estimates were generally found to be conservative. As such,

2 uncertainty in the costs of any of the contemplated SAMAs would not likely have the

3 effect of making them cost beneficial.

4

5 G.7 Conclusions

6

7 RG&E evaluated approximately 200 SAMA candidates using the SAMA analyses as submitted

8 in support of licensing activities for other nuclear power plants, NRC and industry documents

9 discussing potential plant improvements, and the plant-specific insights from the Ginna IPE,

10 IPEEE, and current PSA model. A qualitative screening removed SAMA candidates that

11 (1) were not applicable at Ginna due to design differences, (2) had already been implemented

12 at Ginna, (3) were prohibitively expensive, or (4) did not provide a significant safety benefit. 

13 Upon conclusion of this screening, eight SAMA candidates were retained for further evaluation.

14

15 Using guidance in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997d), the current PSA model, and a Level 3

16 analysis developed specifically for SAMA evaluation, a maximum attainable benefit of about

17 $1.93 million was calculated, representing the total present-dollar-value equivalent associated

18 with completely eliminating severe accidents at Ginna. For the remaining eight SAMA

19 candidates, a more detailed conceptual design and cost estimate were developed as shown in

20 Table 5-5. The cost-benefit analyses showed that two of the eight SAMA candidates were

21 potentially cost beneficial. Upon completion of a 3 percent discount rate sensitivity study, no

22 additional SAMA candidates were determined to be cost beneficial. RG&E also considered the

benefits at the 95th 23 percentile CDF value, and found that no additional SAMAs were cost

24 beneficial.

25

26 The staff reviewed the RG&E analysis and concluded that the methods used and the

27 implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs, the

28 generally large negative net benefits, and the inherently small baseline risks support the

29 general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by RG&E are reasonable and

30 sufficient for the license renewal submittal. The unavailability of a seismic PSA model

31 precluded a quantitative evaluation of SAMAs specifically aimed at reducing risk of this initiator;

32 however, significant improvements have been realized as a result of the IPEEE and SQUG

33 processes at Ginna that would minimize the likelihood of identifying cost beneficial

34 enhancements in this area. It is noted that one item still remains open: seismically induced

35 flooding resulting from the failure of the RMWT and the Monitor Tank. However, RG&E is

36 addressing this item through the PCR process and plans to implement a modification in 2005.

37

38 Although two SAMA candidates appear to be cost beneficial, they do not relate to adequately

39 managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they need

40 not be implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-26 June 2003

1 G.8 References

2

3 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

4 renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants.”

5

6 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1988. A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear

7 Power Plant Seismic Margin. NP-6041, Palo Alto, California.

8

9 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1994. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

10 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20. March 15, 1994.

11

12 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997a. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

13 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: IPEEE Seismic Evaluation Report

14 (prepared by Stevenson & Associates), Rochester Gas and Electric, Robert E. Ginna Station,

15 Attachment to Letter. January 31, 1997.

16

17 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997b. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

18 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20, Level 2 Probabilistic

19 Safety Assessment. August 30, 1997.

20

21 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1997c. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

22 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Generic Letter 88-20, Level 1 Probabilistic

23 Safety Assessment (PSA). January 15, 1997.

24

25 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998a. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

26 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Ginna Station Fire IPEEE. June 30, 1998.

27

28 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998b. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

29 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: IPEEE High Winds and Transportation

30 Report. August 19, 1998.

31

32 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1998c. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

33 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Supplement to High Winds and

34 Transportation Report. September 8, 1998.

35

36 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 1999. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

37 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to Request for Additional

38 Information on IPEEE. July 30, 1999.

39
Appendix G

June 2003 G-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14

1 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2002. Applicant’s Environmental Report –

2 Operating License Renewal Stage, Ginna Station. Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation,

3 Rochester, New York.

4

5 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2003a. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

6 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to December 26, 2002, Request for

7 Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative. January 31, 2003.

8

9 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2003b. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to December 26, 2002, Request for

11 Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives. February 28, 2003.

12

13 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E). 2003c. Letter from R. C. Mecredy (RG&E) to

14 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Clarifications to 1/31/03 and 2/28/03 SAMA

15 RAI Response. April 4, 2003.

16

17 U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture, AC97-A-32–New York

18 State and County Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 32. Washington, D.C.

19

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1973. Design Response Spectra for Seismic

21 Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1. Regulatory Guide 1.60, Washington, D.C.

22

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Seismic Qualification of Equipment in

24 Operating Nuclear Power Plants (USI A-46). NUREG-1030, Washington, D.C.

25

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Generic Letter 88-20, “Individual Plant

27 Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” November 23, 1988.

28

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990 Severe Accident Risks - An Assessment for

30 Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C.

31

32 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program:

33 Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C.

34

35 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Letter from G. Vissing, U.S. NRC to

36 R. C. Mecredy, RG&E. Review of R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Individual Plant

37 Examination (IPE) Submittal - Internal Events (Response to Generic Letter 88-20) (TAC No.

38 M74414). September 16, 1997.

39
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 14 G-28 June 2003

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997c. SECPOP90: Sector Population, Land

2 Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program. NUREG/CR-6525, Washington, D.C.

3

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997d. Regulatory Analysis Technical

5 Evaluation Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C.

6

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. An Approach for Estimating the

8 Frequencies of Various Containment Failure Modes and Bypass Events. NUREG/CR-6595,

9 Washington, D.C.

10

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999b. Rates of Initiating Events at U.S. Nuclear

12 Power Plants: 1987-1995. NUREG/CR-5750, Washington. D.C.

13

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Letter from Guy Vissing, U.S. NRC to

15 Robert Mecredy, RG&E. Subject: Review of Ginna Individual Plant Examination of External

16 Events (IPEEE) Submittal (TAC No. M83624). December 21, 2000.

17

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Letter from Robert G. Schaaf (NRC) to

19 Robert C. Mecredy (RG&E). Subject: Request for Additional Information Regarding Severe

20 Accident Mitigation Alternatives for the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. December 26, 2002.

21

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Perspectives Gained From the IPEEE

23 Program, Final Report, Vol. 2. NUREG-1742, Washington, D.C.

24

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Memo to file from Robert G. Schaaf

26 (NRC) Subject: Telecommunication with RG&E to Clarify Responses to SAMA RAI. 

27 May 8, 2003.

28

29 Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC). 1986. Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Peformance

30 Following a Loss of All AC Power. WCAP-10541, Westinghouse Electric Company, Pittsburgh,

31 Pennsylvania.

32

33 Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC). 1999. Transient Initiating Event Operating History

34 Database for U.S. Westinghouse NSSS Plants (1987-1997), Revision 1. WCAP-15210,

35 Westinghouse Electric Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

36

37